PDA

View Full Version : A New Fallacy?



Kelb_Panthera
2016-04-17, 11:05 AM
So any of us whov'e been around for a while have heard of a few logical fallacies unique to table-top roleplaying;

Stormwind fallacy: roll-playing comes at the expense of role-playing.

Oberoni fallacy: it's not broken if you can fix it.

But I've noticed, recently, one for which I don't think I've seen a name.

I posit that it is a logical fallacy that any two people who are using the same TTRPG system are necessesarily playing the same game.

Any of us who've played in any system for a length of time have seen just how drastically the game run and played by one group can differ from that run and played by another. For example, gurps was intentionally designed to be as generic as possible so as to accomodate everything from gritty, historical, light fantasy to futuristic, DBZ-esque superheroes and everything in between. From the setting itself (earth [RL] vs golarion vs abieir-toril vs earth 623 [DC universe]) to the setting's presumptions (low magic vs high magic vs hard scifi vs sience fantasy) to the power scale of the players to "you name it," everything can change from one group to the next, even if they're using the same basic ruleset.

Has anyone else noticed this and/or has the idea that this is or is not the case been formally named?

Cluedrew
2016-04-17, 11:18 AM
I have never heard that one officially called out before, although I have people informally use it (or something like it) many times. The first name that pops into my head is "Play-Style Invariance Fallacy" but that is a little bit wordy.

It does remind me of the Playgrounder's Fallacy, which makes an assumption about a system (usually towards D&D 3.5e). The noticeable difference is that that is between systems while this new one is within them.

Another role-playing game fallacy:

That a game can be broken means that it is broken. Which is not a fallacy for some definitions of broken.

The best example about this came from Mutants & Masterminds, someone claimed that the game was broken because of some things you can do with arrays. Someone else pointed that there is a sidebar in that section of the rules pointing that every fact out. The sidebar also says that the exploit is necessary to make some parts of the game work and it explicitly asks you not to exploit it because it will break the game.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-17, 11:42 AM
Any of us who've played in any system for a length of time have seen just how drastically the game run and played by one group can differ from that run and played by another. For example, gurps was intentionally designed to be as generic as possible so as to accomodate everything from gritty, historical, light fantasy to futuristic, DBZ-esque superheroes and everything in between. From the setting itself (earth [RL] vs golarion vs abieir-toril vs earth 623 [DC universe]) to the setting's presumptions (low magic vs high magic vs hard scifi vs sience fantasy) to the power scale of the players to "you name it," everything can change from one group to the next, even if they're using the same basic ruleset.

In the interests of confusing people when it is brought up, I suggest:

The Experience Fallacy: the system used matters more to the feeling than the group using it.

Note that I use the word experience in the present tense there, not the past tense, it's important for making it work.

Looking into I agree with you, and would go so far as to say that the group matters significantly more than the system. I've played Unknown Armies and GURPS with one group, and the only real difference is what dice we are rolling, the experience themselves aren't that different. Conversely, I've had another group where All Flesh Must Be Eaten and D&D felt remarkably similar, but Mutants and Masterminds didn't due to the group taking the latter far more seriously.

Note I've noticed other fallacies during play, from the surprisingly common 'a game is boring if it doesn't have a combat' (one of the best sessions I've been in climaxed with me losing badly at a religious debate and the engineer getting information out of a suspect, no fights at all), to 'it is inherently bad to minmax characters' (separate from the Stormwind Fallacy, but closely related), but nothing important enough to be worth naming.

Keltest
2016-04-17, 11:55 AM
We could call it Fallacy Zero, as in rule 0, because rule 0 and how its applied is what differentiates tables from each other.

Vinyadan
2016-04-17, 12:00 PM
So it's like saying "the ruleset has more to do with a game engine than with a game"?

Jay R
2016-04-17, 12:24 PM
In the novel Glory Road, Heinlein had his character Rufo say:
"Any social organization does well enough if it isn’t rigid. The framework doesn’t matter as long as there is enough looseness to permit that one man in a multitude to display his genius. Most so-called social scientists seem to think that organization is everything. It is almost nothing—except when it is a straitjacket. It is the incidence of heroes that counts, not the pattern of zeros."

Change "social organization" to "game system," and you have Heinlein's Law of RPGs.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-17, 12:38 PM
I only think it's fallacious inasmuch as one assumes that the system is the ONLY factor to the tenor of a game, but to assume that system has only a small effect on the tenor of the game is also untrue. There is a huge difference between playing Monopoly with friends and playing Risk with friends, because the two games provide vastly different experiences despite being very similar. (Both are long-play games, both are competitive, both involve a mix of strategy and chance, etc.)

The same thing can be said of the difference between playing Shadowrun and D&D. It has a very large impact on how things will go. Same goes for GURPS versus any other system.

The fallacy is only fallacious if being used to say that the experience of group A must necessarily be exactly the same as that of Group B because of the system. To say that they are playing the same system is not fallacious. To say that their experiences will have core similarities is not fallacious (it's the same system, after all.)

Two individual games of monopoly may be very different from one another. But both will be more similar to one another than to a game of Stratego, even if one is Star Wars Monopoly and the other is LoTR Monopoly.

Basically, there isn't a logical fallacy in saying "two groups playing GURPS will have more in common with one another than with a third group playing Dogs in the Vineyard," which is the primary idea the use of this fallacy would be aimed at. Which would be wrong.

I'm not convinced this is a fallacy at all except in very specific circumstances that may not merit it having a name.

LudicSavant
2016-04-17, 12:55 PM
The Stormwind Fallacy and Oberoni Fallacy aren't so much "new fallacies unique to D&D" so much as they're specific examples of old fallacies applied to specific D&D issues and given a new name for some reason.

For example, the Stormwind Fallacy is just False Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma).

Also,

I'm not convinced this is a fallacy at all except in very specific circumstances that may not merit it having a name.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-04-17, 01:15 PM
So it's like saying "the ruleset has more to do with a game engine than with a game"?

It's more the fallcious assumption that, "If it's the same game (ruleset) it's the same game (experience in play)."

With that explanation in mind, Same Game Fallacy?

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-17, 01:30 PM
It's more the fallcious assumption that, "If it's the same game (ruleset) it's the same game (experience in play)."

With that explanation in mind, Same Game Fallacy?

I don't think I've seen anyone assert that, ever. (Granted, I don't sift through every thread.)

I've seen people (like myself) say that GURPS will feel like GURPS when you play GURPS because it is still GURPS, but that's common sense. I've never statex that any given two GURPS experiences will be the same, just that they will both obviously be GURPS.

You might put Goldfish crackers in your tomato soup, and I may put Sour Cream in mine. But at the end of the day, we're still both eating tomato soup and our two exoeriences wll be more similar to eachother than to the experience of the guy eating Chicken Noodle Soup.

Nifft
2016-04-17, 01:31 PM
But I've noticed, recently, one for which I don't think I've seen a name.

I posit that it is a logical fallacy that any two people who are using the same TTRPG system are necessesarily playing the same game.
I hereby dub this the Kelp Fallacy.

Therefore, you now have the honor of getting a fallacy named after yourself, but at the same time the name is spelled intentionally wrong. (As a side-benefit, the word Kelp will not be auto-corrected into anything unfortunate.)


In the novel Glory Road, Heinlein had his character Rufo say:
"Any social organization does well enough if it isn’t rigid. The framework doesn’t matter as long as there is enough looseness to permit that one man in a multitude to display his genius. Most so-called social scientists seem to think that organization is everything. It is almost nothing—except when it is a straitjacket. It is the incidence of heroes that counts, not the pattern of zeros."

Heh.

Whenever someone standing on the shoulders of giants complains about how all that long giant hair sometimes obscures the view of the really important person -- which is himself, of course -- it kinda cracks me up.

The rather complex organization ("modern civilization") whereby a person can type words about pretend people in pretend places and exchange this act for food, shelter, and all the modern conveniences -- IMHO that "pattern of zeroes" seems a bit more relevant to my life than the "hero" getting paid to write a book which complains about it.

LudicSavant
2016-04-17, 01:53 PM
I posit that it is a logical fallacy that any two people who are using the same TTRPG system are necessesarily playing the same game.

The problem with this definition is that it invites misunderstanding more than it clarifies logical error.

"I think that she's playing D&D 3.5e, and that he's playing D&D 3.5e. D&D 3.5e is a game. Both he and she are playing that game." <---Nothing is fallacious in there.

As for what you apparently meant to convey (e.g. same system != same experience)


Has anyone else noticed this and/or has the idea that this is or is not the case been formally named?

- No, I have not noticed people making the argument that same game system = same game experience. By contrast, when the Stormwind and Oberoni Fallacies were coined, I was seeing arguments committing those fallacies every other day.
- Yes, there is already a formal name for the fallacy that you seem to have meant to define. It's called False Equivalence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence)

Cluedrew
2016-04-17, 01:59 PM
I don't think I've seen anyone assert that, ever.Neither have I, but I have seen people make statements that use that as a base assumption. It is a very simple thing, one you might even correct when you stop to think about it without even realizing it. Lets use an example from earlier in the thread.


Basically, there isn't a logical fallacy in saying "two groups playing GURPS will have more in common with one another than with a third group playing Dogs in the Vineyard," which is the primary idea the use of this fallacy would be aimed at. Which would be wrong.In other words given all games of GURPS and all games of Dogs in the Vineyard, the difference between any two games of GURPS is strictly less than the difference between any game of GURPS and any game of Dogs in the Vineyard. Now I can't say it is wrong, because I don't know about the systems, but I am not convinced. However if you added some thing about averages and probability in there, I'd probably believe that.

Its not anything huge, it is just a short cut people run in their heads which isn't actually correct. And that is all any fallacy is in a way, although a lot are correct often enough that we keep using them.

Also... yeah this might not be naming, but I'm here for fun, not because it is an efficient and productive use of my time.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-17, 04:30 PM
Neither have I, but I have seen people make statements that use that as a base assumption. It is a very simple thing, one you might even correct when you stop to think about it without even realizing it. Lets use an example from earlier in the thread.

Games are often designed with an aesthetic and general themes in mind, and play to those strengths. Saying that games built around and made for certain themes will more often than not involve those themes is not fallacious. It's common sense. Even accounting for generic systems which can handle many SETTINGS, their tone wll be noticeably different from other systems.



In other words given all games of GURPS and all games of Dogs in the Vineyard, the difference between any two games of GURPS is strictly less than the difference between any game of GURPS and any game of Dogs in the Vineyard. Now I can't say it is wrong, because I don't know about the systems, but I am not convinced. However if you added some thing about averages and probability in there, I'd probably believe that.

Would you say you were unconvinced if I made the exact same comparison between Monopoly and Risk?
If yes, why? These are obviously very different games.
If no, how is that comparison any different when substituting two other games that share a similarly low amount of design features between the two?




Its not anything huge, it is just a short cut people run in their heads which isn't actually correct. And that is all any fallacy is in a way, although a lot are correct often enough that we keep using them.

Also... yeah this might not be naming, but I'm here for fun, not because it is an efficient and productive use of my time.
Basically, the quick and easy counter to this being a fallacy is:
If how one makes use of a system is the only thing that matters, why do multiple systems exist? Why is GURPS/FATE not at the top of the rpg charts since they would be able to handle literally anything based on the group that's playing?
Why would there ever exist more than one system if one generic system has both a rules-heavy and rules-light version, and the differences between any two RPGs was mainly in the group of people playing? Wouldn't that make it so that one would collect different groups to play one generic system rather than have one group try many systems to see what they like?
Why would people bother to recommend systems for certain things if the best answer is "How any system feels depends on the group playing it!"

When taken not too far from the underlying logical premise of the fallacy as presented (System doesn't really matter compared to any other factors) it starts to sound somewhat silly.

Now, I'm not saying this is what anyone here is asserting, but it's not a difficult next step to go into an entirely different area of mistakenness. System matters. Rules matter. Rules are the difference between Chess and Checkers. You can put drawings on the checkers pieces and use the same board to play chess. Or use chess pieces as checkers pieces, ignoring their shapes. The real difference is the rules. The rules to games MATTER, since they define the game in the first place.

Cluedrew
2016-04-17, 04:55 PM
Saying that games built around and made for certain themes will more often than not involve those themes is not fallacious.I agree, all I meant to do is point out that you left out the "more often than not" part. It is small but it turns it from something that makes sense to something invalid.


Would you say you were unconvinced if I made the exact same comparison between Monopoly and Risk?
If yes, why? These are obviously very different games.Yes I would actually, despite the very different rule sets the overall experiences I have had playing those two games are very similar. This is both personal and hard to quantify, but they end up being games we would with significant, often overnight, breaks and the game itself was... not the main point I guess. Go back to Monopoly and Stratego, my experiences with those two games have been less similar to each other.

But about the fallacy itself: I don't think anyone here is trying to say that that the system has no effect on the experience of playing the game, just that it is not the only effect. Similarly even if you can say something in general about how a system usually plays, that doesn't mean you can say it about every game played in that system. (Hey LudicSavant, does that fallacy have a formal name?)

Nifft
2016-04-17, 05:00 PM
Would you say you were unconvinced if I made the exact same comparison between Monopoly and Risk?

Interesting choices.

In my experience, Monopoly accumulates a huge number of family-specific house-rules. I've played several different games which use the "Monopoly" base rules but are not identical -- and which play differently.

Risk is a very different game if you allow "political alliances" between players (and of course the sudden yet inevitable back-stabbing that usually ends such things). The degree to which "alliances" matter will vary from group to group, and even from game to game within the same group, depending on circumstances.

Would a game of Monopoly with "economic alliances" be similar to a game of Risk with "political alliances"?

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-17, 05:22 PM
Interesting choices.

In my experience, Monopoly accumulates a huge number of family-specific house-rules. I've played several different games which use the "Monopoly" base rules but are not identical -- and which play differently.

I have bad memories of Monopoly due to how my family plays (specifically, we avoid giving other people monopolies). I've always wondered why people seem to enjoy it, because it's a slow decline to me always losing first.


Risk is a very different game if you allow "political alliances" between players (and of course the sudden yet inevitable back-stabbing that usually ends such things). The degree to which "alliances" matter will vary from group to group, and even from game to game within the same group, depending on circumstances.

I've always played Risk as 'Diplomacy lite', alliances included, since even before I'd heard of Diplomacy, and it changes the game a lot. I remember the first time I played my step dad got everyone else to gang up on me because I'd played well and was in a position to beat him (not helped by the fact I'd been either expanding aggressively or stagnant for the last couple of turns, it's been too long since that game). It's a very different feeling to what other people I know normally play it as, which is a friendly free for all no alliances game. The available strategies vary massively, let alone the optimal one.


Would a game of Monopoly with "economic alliances" be similar to a game of Risk with "political alliances"?

I'd say it could be, but not to the degree Risk and Diplomacy can be.

Frozen_Feet
2016-04-17, 06:04 PM
There aren't a whole lot of new fallacies in the field of RPGs - but there are a lot of widespread, specific manifestations of old ones.

I would peg this fallacy as "mind projection fallacy" rather than "false equivalence", though I suppose you could argue the former is specifix example of the latter.

DontEatRawHagis
2016-04-17, 09:29 PM
Geoff/Travis's Fallacy: Any sufficiently powerful build can be nullified by proper application of the rules.

6+ Player Law: for every player above 6 the likelihood of the DM not incorporating backstory and rage quitting is increased.

veti
2016-04-17, 10:37 PM
"I think that she's playing D&D 3.5e, and that he's playing D&D 3.5e. D&D 3.5e is a game. Both he and she are playing that game." <---Nothing is fallacious in there.

Yes, there is. The statement "D&D 3.5e is a game" is not true.

It's a game system. A game engine. To say that any two DMs' versions of 3.5e must be the same game is like saying that Fallout: New Vegas is the same as Assassin's Creed because they both use the Havok engine.

You could have a Forgotten Realms (kitchen sink) setting, a setting where the only playable race is humans, an E6 setting where "wizard" is a proscribed class, a setting using core rules only but in a monotheistic universe, a setting where guns and internal combustion have been invented... These would be quite different games, but could all be using 3.5e rules.

Thrudd
2016-04-17, 11:56 PM
The issue of assuming all games of a given system are equivalent is one of drawing conclusions without sufficient data. Further inquiry is required before making comparisons between one table's game and another's.

It is a fallacy to equate system with actual game experience only because a large number of tables modify or ignore the rules of any given system to the extent that they often can't really be said to be using the same system.

In a hypothetical discussion of the experience generated by playing a given system entirely according to the rules as written, experiences should be closer. Of course, inquiry must still be made into what official optional rules were being enacted that would create variance.

Usually the discussion goes along the lines of: "What game are you playing?"
"3.5e...well, with some house rules. We only allow tome of battle, psionics, and full spell casting classes. And we don't use XP, just level after every session. And we use d20 modern style wealth rules instead of keeping track of gold. And we have a rule that lets us reroll a number of dice each session based on points the DM awards us for good role playing or trying cool stunts."

So...that isn't really D&D 3.5e, it's a homebrew based on it. You can't compare how that game works with someone playing RAW out of the core books. False equivalence. Not the same game, not even the same system.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-18, 04:13 AM
Yes, there is. The statement "D&D 3.5e is a game" is not true.

It's a game system. A game engine. To say that any two DMs' versions of 3.5e must be the same game is like saying that Fallout: New Vegas is the same as Assassin's Creed because they both use the Havok engine.

You could have a Forgotten Realms (kitchen sink) setting, a setting where the only playable race is humans, an E6 setting where "wizard" is a proscribed class, a setting using core rules only but in a monotheistic universe, a setting where guns and internal combustion have been invented... These would be quite different games, but could all be using 3.5e rules.

Wizards of the Coast disagrees with you.

http://dnd.wizards.com/dungeons-and-dragons/what-dd/history/history-forty-years-adventure

1983, 5th bullet point: D&D is referred to as a game.

1987, 3rd bullet point: AD&D is referred to as a game.

1990, 1st bullet point: AD&D referred to as a game.

1991, 4th bullet point: You guessed it.

2000, 3rd bullet: Indirectly referred to as a game.

2004, 2nd bullet point: Reads as follows "The 30th anniversary of Dungeons & Dragons is honored with a retrospective book on the game’s history, 30 Years of Adventure."

The creators of the Game call it a Game. It's a game. It's a game with rules that can be altered if you want (Hey, so can Monopoly!) and one where you can create your own storyline and setting (various board games involve narrative while still being Games.)

So no, D&D 3.5 is an RPG. Which happens to stand for Role-Playing Game. D&D is a game even by dictionary definition "a form of play or sport, especially a competitive one played according to rules and decided by skill, strength, or luck." So to be a game the criteria are:
1. A form of play or sport (D&D fits this!)
2. Played according to rules (D&D fits this!)
3. Decided by skill (somewhat), Strength (nope), or Luck (Yup!)

D&D is a game. End of story.

themaque
2016-04-18, 04:41 AM
D&D is a game.

True, but it's also like saying "I'm playing Solitaire." With so many different variances and permutations it's just saying I play 3.5 could mean... just about anything.

It's like Thrudd said, it's working under insufficient information.

And I will back the OP and say I've seen people base opinions and arguments on this sort of thinking but also agree that I'm unsure it requires a full Fallacy description. Such a name would just make conversation more confusing rather than a shorthand for clearing things up.

Lorsa
2016-04-18, 04:55 AM
I'm not really sure this is a fallacy. It all depends on the contextual meaning of "game".

Even though the experiences are very different, D&D for example, is a type of "game" that can be applied to a very broad spectrum of experiences.

I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone claim that one game is equal experience for everyone. That would be like saying that me and my four friends getting together to play football (the Association type) is the same experience as when Real Madrid meets FC Barcelona.

Comet
2016-04-18, 04:59 AM
The problem with giving this a cool name and celebrating it is that it makes conversation that much more difficult rather than helping anyone achieve anything in particular.

"How do I optimize our party for dungeons and trapfinding?"

"What are you playing?"

"3.5 D&D"

"Okay, maybe you should get a rogue and some ten-foot poles and put your barbarian up front to detect traps?"

"Same-name-same-game-fallacy! Our game doesn't have rogues or barbarians, ten-foot poles are sacred totems worth a thousand gold and everyone is playing uplifted cephalopods!"

"Okay, cool."

I'm being difficult and annoying, of course, but the point remains: the reason that hobby conversation assumes common ground is that it gives you something to talk about without spending hours defining the conversation beforehand.

LudicSavant
2016-04-18, 06:57 AM
Yes, there is. The statement "D&D 3.5e is a game" is not true.
Both Dictionary.com and Wizards of the Coast disagree with you on that.

Frozen_Feet
2016-04-18, 07:41 AM
I think this discussion has taken a wrong turn.

"A game" may refer to ruleset which defines process of play, but also to a specific iteration of play. Chess is a game, but not all games of Chess are equal - even though the rules are the same.

In the same way, two games of D&D can be different, without having to argue D&D is not a game.

kyoryu
2016-04-18, 10:43 AM
Regardless of terminology, the point that two different groups may well have entirely different experiences at the table, even if using the same system, still seems appropriate and accurate based on my experience as well as conversations I've had with others.

It might be true that, for instance, two "games" of GURPS might be more similar to each other than a game of DitV, but at the same time, those occupy two pretty divergent points in the solution space of games, and DitV, particularly, was written to attempt to be fairly consistent in how it's run.

At the same time, I've seen so many games fall apart (most typically D&D, since it's the "default") because of expectations of how things would be run - linear story vs. more open sandbox vs. world sim vs. story-game-like vs. dungeon crawl etc. I've seen games run with the same system that bear almost no similarity to each other apart from basic genre.

OldTrees1
2016-04-18, 11:41 AM
I think this discussion has taken a wrong turn.

"A game" may refer to ruleset which defines process of play, but also to a specific iteration of play. Chess is a game, but not all games of Chess are equal - even though the rules are the same.

In the same way, two games of D&D can be different, without having to argue D&D is not a game.

Correct.
It can also mean a specific adaptation/configuration of the general ruleset, that would define process of play for a group (which is somewhere in the middle of those two). Essentially there is an abstract-concrete continuum where each more abstract layer acts as a customizable game engine for the next more concrete layer.

Cybren
2016-04-18, 12:29 PM
I don't know if any of those fallacies were particularly useful to discussion and in many ways I feel they regressed the discussion concerning D&D. The Stormwind fallacy is often used as a justification for people doing exactly what it says isn't necessarily true, and the Oberoni fallacy ignores that we don't play D&D in a sterile computer controlled environment, and the definition of "broken" for most RPG players is "something I care strongly about using this arbitrary metrics that don't necessarily impact play unless I decide they should impact play".

soldersbushwack
2016-04-18, 12:55 PM
I have never heard that one officially called out before, although I have people informally use it (or something like it) many times. The first name that pops into my head is "Play-Style Invariance Fallacy" but that is a little bit wordy.

It does remind me of the Playgrounder's Fallacy, which makes an assumption about a system (usually towards D&D 3.5e). The noticeable difference is that that is between systems while this new one is within them.

Another role-playing game fallacy:

That a game can be broken means that it is broken. Which is not a fallacy for some definitions of broken.

The best example about this came from Mutants & Masterminds, someone claimed that the game was broken because of some things you can do with arrays. Someone else pointed that there is a sidebar in that section of the rules pointing that every fact out. The sidebar also says that the exploit is necessary to make some parts of the game work and it explicitly asks you not to exploit it because it will break the game.

A game is broken because it has rules that make it harder to play or DM effectively. Just because it is explicitly pointed out that one has to be careful or one will accidentally make an overpowered character doesn't negate the extra work of having to avoid making an overpowered character or dealing with a player who does so. It is objectively more work and a mark against the game.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-18, 01:35 PM
I don't know if any of those fallacies were particularly useful to discussion and in many ways I feel they regressed the discussion concerning D&D. The Stormwind fallacy is often used as a justification for people doing exactly what it says isn't necessarily true, and the Oberoni fallacy ignores that we don't play D&D in a sterile computer controlled environment, and the definition of "broken" for most RPG players is "something I care strongly about using this arbitrary metrics that don't necessarily impact play unless I decide they should impact play".

The Stormwind Fallacy has moved into the realms of 'not really needed' at least around here, I still see it pop up on the Onyx Path boards occasionally in more specific forms (mainly 'optimisation means they don't care about the concept/game'), ironically as an argument for why not to fix broken things. The Oberoni Fallacy is useful, because it's just stating that something can be broken as written even if you can fix it easily, but it doesn't come up too often these days.

I would like to suggest a variation on the Same Game Fallacy, which is:

-A problem not being supported by theory crafting does mean it is invalid.

I do see this quite a bit, although it's quite often paired with the 'all in-game problems should be solved in-game' misconception.

For the Same Game Fallacy, I've noticed that an optimisation focused group (where the GM agrees that there's a requirement to munchkin a certain amount) feels much different from one where it's a passing concern (also, I feel like I need to point out that the former is more roleplaying focused). I've not played any game with both groups, and each group prefers a different style (op lethal and simulationist, nonop nondeadly and more gamist), but in both cases the tone remained the same across games, to the point that Werewolf: the Apocalypse felt like D&D (that GM is now running D&D, where the only difference style-wise is the presence of a DMPC).

OldTrees1
2016-04-18, 02:10 PM
I would like to suggest a variation on the Same Game Fallacy, which is:

-A problem not being supported by theory crafting does mean it is invalid.

I do see this quite a bit, although it's quite often paired with the 'all in-game problems should be solved in-game' misconception.

This is not stated clearly. Are you saying "It is fallacious to say 'something is not a problem because I cannot describe a theory of why it is a problem'"? I doubt that is what you meant because it is rather self evident to all that don't claim omniscience, so I conclude that I don't know what you are saying.

Frozen_Feet
2016-04-18, 02:46 PM
"In-game problems should be solved in-game" is not a misconception. It's a value judgement. It can appear as an unsupported conclusion that's a part of or result of a faulty chain of logic, but it may as well appear as an axiom.

OldTrees1
2016-04-18, 02:52 PM
"In-game problems should be solved in-game" is not a misconception. It's a value judgement. It can appear as an unsupported conclusion that's a part of or result of a faulty chain of logic, but it may as well appear as an axiom.

Yes, "For all problems: The elegant solution is to solve them in their own area so that the solution does not merely create a problem elsewhere." should be considered an axiom.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-18, 02:57 PM
"In-game problems should be solved in-game" is not a misconception. It's a value judgement. It can appear as an unsupported conclusion that's a part of or result of a faulty chain of logic, but it may as well appear as an axiom.

Sorry, I forgot it would probably be interpreted like that, it was more the tendency I've seen for people, especially new players, to try and find an in-game way to solve problems best solved by just having a talk with the person. Should probably have used 'in character' for the latter part.

OldTrees1
2016-04-18, 03:17 PM
Sorry, I forgot it would probably be interpreted like that, it was more the tendency I've seen for people, especially new players, to try and find an in-game way to solve problems best solved by just having a talk with the person. Should probably have used 'in character' for the latter part.

Ah, you mean something that breaks the axiom by attempting an in game solution to an out of character issue.

However you still have not clarified what "A problem not being supported by theory crafting does mean it is invalid." meant.

Anonymouswizard
2016-04-18, 03:21 PM
Ah, you mean something that breaks the axiom by attempting an in game solution to an out of character issue.

However you still have not clarified what "A problem not being supported by theory crafting does mean it is invalid." meant.

Essentially, a tendency people have to not except problems that go against theory crafting, like if a group is dealing with an overpowered monk.

Frozen_Feet
2016-04-18, 03:38 PM
I don't think that's a discreet fallacy as much as it is bias similar to Dunning-Kruger effect.

Cluedrew
2016-04-18, 03:55 PM
A game is broken because it has rules that make it harder to play or DM effectively. Just because it is explicitly pointed out that one has to be careful or one will accidentally make an overpowered character doesn't negate the extra work of having to avoid making an overpowered character or dealing with a player who does so. It is objectively more work and a mark against the game.I do not know Mutants and Masterminds well enough to know which claim is true. All I can do is talk about what I remember of the original debate, I'd even link you to it if I knew were it was.

However a longer explanation of "Anti-Oberoni Fallacy" might go as follows: The existence of an exploit* in the system that the use of damages some aspect of game-play (here balance) does not make a game broken. *exploit here means using rules/mechanics in a way that is not forbidden, but was not intended.

Now I agree with that, if only because there is a vast gap between "imperfect" and "broken", but I can't tell you as much about this particular case.


Yes, "For all problems: The elegant solution is to solve them in their own area so that the solution does not merely create a problem elsewhere." should be considered an axiom.The problem is that very few problems are confined to a single area. For instance some "in-character problems" are actually caused by something that didn't even happen at the table, let alone in-character.

OldTrees1
2016-04-18, 03:57 PM
Essentially, a tendency people have to not except problems that go against theory crafting, like if a group is dealing with an overpowered monk.


I don't think that's a discreet fallacy as much as it is bias similar to Dunning-Kruger effect.

Ah, the "My theory does not allow for that problem -> Reality does not allow for that problem" error. Whether you count it as a fallacy, a cognitive bias(it is not the Dunning-Kruger effect but it is similar), or a rose, I don't think it should get a named fallacy.

Why should the mistake of presuming one's model is sufficiently complete & accurate not get a name? Because the person you are correcting will not be convinced of their error if there is no evidence provided and merely naming the error you claim they made is worse than no evidence(it is no evidence & puts them on the defensive). No, when someone makes this error they fail to see the problem existing in reality and only by showing them the problem existing in reality will they resort to improving their theorycrafting.

WindStruck
2016-04-19, 11:30 PM
I don't even think you could call that a fallacy. It's just a flat-out wrong argument based on no knowledge and with absolutely no thought put into it at all.

Even if failing a diplomacy check with a dragon results in having to make a reflex save to avoid it's breath, and that's mechanically identical as failing a search check and then having to make a fortitude save to mitigate a poison from a trap...

The thing is, d&d has always been a game about roleplay more than anything. There may be rules for determining unknown outcomes with dice, but there are absolutely no rules for defining your setting, the story, the people, the PCs, and the actions they choose to take.

It's kind of like saying the laws of physics throughout the whole universe are fixed and constant, so therefore every living organism's life experience is exactly the same as another's.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-20, 12:48 AM
I don't even think you could call that a fallacy. It's just a flat-out wrong argument based on no knowledge and with absolutely no thought put into it at all.

Even if failing a diplomacy check with a dragon results in having to make a reflex save to avoid it's breath, and that's mechanically identical as failing a search check and then having to make a fortitude save to mitigate a poison from a trap...

The thing is, d&d has always been a game about roleplay more than anything. There may be rules for determining unknown outcomes with dice, but there are absolutely no rules for defining your setting, the story, the people, the PCs, and the actions they choose to take.

It's kind of like saying the laws of physics throughout the whole universe are fixed and constant, so therefore every living organism's life experience is exactly the same as another's.

That's not a thing anyone has ever argued. What HAS been argued is thst systems are good at certain themes, motifs, and narrative structures.

Because the system is designed with those themes, motifs, and narrative structures in mind, and their rules (if made with any sort of care) will support those themes, motifs, and narrative structures better than they support others.

Because of this, most campaigns in these systems will share these themes, motifs, and narrative structures.

For D&D, the most basic narrative structure is:
There is a Bad Guy (or Organization of Bad Guys)
There are PCs.
PCs must complete a series of fairly modular "quests" to defeat the Bad Guy.

The primary alternative is
There is a hostile environment full of dungeons and loot
There are PCs
PCs explore this hostile, dungeon-filled environment in search of epic loots.

Why are these the two "default" narrative structures for D&D? Because D&D is REALLY GOOD at that kind of narrative.

D&D doesn't do Political Intrigue or Interpersonal Drama very well. There are better systems for that. A relatively mundane but deeply emotional journey from one place to another where very little action happens is not going to work well in D&D, but Fall of Magic does an amazing job of that.

That's why I disagree with the fallacy for another reason entirely. It's presumption is that a group of players playing a game has a bigger effect on the game than the rules of rhe game, meaning that Steve and Rick playing chess will be just like Steve and Rick playing Monopoly, but entirely different from Joe and Tim playing chess. Which is stupid.

Lorsa
2016-04-20, 02:57 AM
Ah, the "My theory does not allow for that problem -> Reality does not allow for that problem" error. Whether you count it as a fallacy, a cognitive bias(it is not the Dunning-Kruger effect but it is similar), or a rose, I don't think it should get a named fallacy.

Why should the mistake of presuming one's model is sufficiently complete & accurate not get a name? Because the person you are correcting will not be convinced of their error if there is no evidence provided and merely naming the error you claim they made is worse than no evidence(it is no evidence & puts them on the defensive). No, when someone makes this error they fail to see the problem existing in reality and only by showing them the problem existing in reality will they resort to improving their theorycrafting.

I think it counts as simply being very narrow-minded.

Knaight
2016-04-20, 09:27 AM
That's why I disagree with the fallacy for another reason entirely. It's presumption is that a group of players playing a game has a bigger effect on the game than the rules of rhe game, meaning that Steve and Rick playing chess will be just like Steve and Rick playing Monopoly, but entirely different from Joe and Tim playing chess. Which is stupid.

I also suspect that this so called fallacy is getting brought up here because the forum is disproportionately focused upon a handful of similar games. Yes, the difference between Steve and Rick playing D&D 3e and Steve and Rick playing D&D 5e is probably smaller than the difference between them playing a given edition and Joe and Tim playing a different edition. On the other hand, Steve and Rick playing Fiasco or Microscope is going to be pretty distinct, likely more so than the two different D&D games.

kyoryu
2016-04-20, 10:28 AM
I also suspect that this so called fallacy is getting brought up here because the forum is disproportionately focused upon a handful of similar games. Yes, the difference between Steve and Rick playing D&D 3e and Steve and Rick playing D&D 5e is probably smaller than the difference between them playing a given edition and Joe and Tim playing a different edition. On the other hand, Steve and Rick playing Fiasco or Microscope is going to be pretty distinct, likely more so than the two different D&D games.

Sure, but here's the kicker: Given Steve & Rick playing D&D 3e, which is (likely to be) more similar - Steve & Rick playing 5e, or Alan and Bob playing 3e?

I'd argue that, in fact, it's Steve & Rick playing 5e.

We can also look at games that are far closer conceptually than Fiasco or Microscope, like, well, the vast majority of games. GURPS, BRP, etc. are all similar enough in structure that you can apply most of the same stuff to them.

In a way, pointing out that Microscope will end up with a different play experience points out the *truth* of this. Because you really have to go to Fiasco/Microscope levels of 'differentness' to really guarantee that you can say that there will be a different play experience.

Knaight
2016-04-20, 11:31 AM
Sure, but here's the kicker: Given Steve & Rick playing D&D 3e, which is (likely to be) more similar - Steve & Rick playing 5e, or Alan and Bob playing 3e?

I'd argue that, in fact, it's Steve & Rick playing 5e.
So would I. For that matter, so did I. That doesn't mean much though, as the editions of D&D are all very similar.


We can also look at games that are far closer conceptually than Fiasco or Microscope, like, well, the vast majority of games. GURPS, BRP, etc. are all similar enough in structure that you can apply most of the same stuff to them.

In a way, pointing out that Microscope will end up with a different play experience points out the *truth* of this. Because you really have to go to Fiasco/Microscope levels of 'differentness' to really guarantee that you can say that there will be a different play experience.
I went to the extremes because it avoids nitpicking on the example side, there's no real grey area. I'd suggest that the level of difference really needed is much smaller than that. D&D, GURPS, and BRP are all probably similar enough that you get highly similar games out compared to a given D&D edition, where player differences dominate. Once you get to Fate, Burning Wheel, Shadowrun, the WoD games, or the Powered by The Apocalypse games, I'd expect the game differences to be more extreme. It's also worth observing that D&D is one of the games that sees a disproportionately wide style of play, as the people who play other games are often likely to switch between them for games that vary in more minor fashions, rather than trying to get one system to work for the lot of them*.

To use a graphical analogy, every game essentially has a certain type of play covered by the play-space, with some better covered than others. Different groups are going to end up in different areas of said play-space. Similar systems often overlap extremely heavily, thus causing group variation to be much bigger, particularly as individual groups aren't likely to move much if the play-space overlap is so complete. More different games drift further and further and cause groups to move further and further, until the locations occupied by the same group in two different games eventually grows bigger than the distance between them and another group. How far that is depends on the initial group-gap, which is itself largely game determined. For a hyperfocused rules light game (e.g. Lady Blackbird), that initial group-gap is likely to be fairly small. For a sprawling game that the vast majority of players play exclusively, it gets much larger.

*This applies a lot less to the generic systems.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-20, 12:01 PM
The problem with these assumptions is the following:
Everything being argued as being similar thusfar has either been Narrative Structure (since the standard adventuring Narrative Structure is very common) or not part of the game's rules at all. (The interactions between the players, the environment and circumstances of play, length of time spent playing, etc.)

Within THE GAMES there are very broad differences between D&D 3.5 and GURPS which will, in fact, cause them to be different Game Experiences.
Even though you play both for 4 hours
With the same 5 dudes
Eating the same cheetos and drinking the same beer
Even if doing the exact same campaign in two different systems for no discernible reason,
The two systems will behave differently because they are DESIGNED differently.
One is class-based, the other is more modular.
This means that one has a lesser degree of customization (D&D) and the other has more flexible character creation that can more accurately provide the exact desired character (GURPS)
One is (by default) more lethal, meaning a higher chance of character death (GURPS.) The other is more forgiving by default, and as such character death will occur less often. (D&D)

I could go on.

These two systems have some things in common, but will in play behave differently. EVEN IF in both cases you are The Warriors of Light out to defeat The Warlock King in the kingdom of Avendelle, the actual GAMES will behave differently, thus creating different base experiences. Everything outside of the game may remain equal, but the games will behave differently because they are different games, with different rules. The fact that both involve a d20 is not sufficient to say they they are pretty much the same thing and that so long as the same group lf humans is playing them, they may as well be the same.

This "fallacy" doesn't hold water unless you ignore the behavior of the games involved and ONLY focus on the elements that are only tangentially related to the system being used.

kyoryu
2016-04-20, 02:44 PM
I went to the extremes because it avoids nitpicking on the example side, there's no real grey area. I'd suggest that the level of difference really needed is much smaller than that. D&D, GURPS, and BRP are all probably similar enough that you get highly similar games out compared to a given D&D edition, where player differences dominate. Once you get to Fate, Burning Wheel, Shadowrun, the WoD games, or the Powered by The Apocalypse games, I'd expect the game differences to be more extreme.

Right, but ultimately what we're talking about is variance within a particular game. And most of those games support a fairly wide variance - PbtA games probably having the least.


It's also worth observing that D&D is one of the games that sees a disproportionately wide style of play, as the people who play other games are often likely to switch between them for games that vary in more minor fashions, rather than trying to get one system to work for the lot of them*.

Agreed.


To use a graphical analogy, every game essentially has a certain type of play covered by the play-space, with some better covered than others. Different groups are going to end up in different areas of said play-space. Similar systems often overlap extremely heavily, thus causing group variation to be much bigger, particularly as individual groups aren't likely to move much if the play-space overlap is so complete. More different games drift further and further and cause groups to move further and further, until the locations occupied by the same group in two different games eventually grows bigger than the distance between them and another group. How far that is depends on the initial group-gap, which is itself largely game determined. For a hyperfocused rules light game (e.g. Lady Blackbird), that initial group-gap is likely to be fairly small. For a sprawling game that the vast majority of players play exclusively, it gets much larger.

Again, agreed. And also worth noting that even two games that cover the same space will *color* that experience differently. You can do megadungeon crawling in D&D or GURPS, but your choice will impact the experience in various ways. You can DragonLance-esque linear railroad games in D&D or GURPS, and, again, the system will color it - but the overall experience will probably be more similar if viewed by game type than by system - the megadungeon games will probably be more similar to each other, regardless of system, than the two D&D games compared to each other.

So we can look at something like Dogs in the Vineyard as one thing, and a megadungeon crawl in the other. And while DitV can't really do a megadungeon without seriously rewriting, you can *totally* do a DitV-like game with D&D*, just by changing Mormons to Fantasy Mormons. The two versions would differ from each other in some ways, as DitV has more mechanical support to do that, but ultimately this means that the variance *within* the space of possible D&D games is *greater* than the space between D&D games and even something as extreme as Dogs in the Vineyard. Yes, the different systems will color the experience, there's no arguing that.

* or really most any other non-focused game, like GURPS, BRP, Fate, etc.



This "fallacy" doesn't hold water unless you ignore the behavior of the games involved and ONLY focus on the elements that are only tangentially related to the system being used.

I think you're trying to argue against the idea that system doesn't impact/color the experience. That's not a point that I am trying to make, nor one that I've seen others make. The point I'm attempting to make is that the final experience is the *combination* of system and the folks playing it (with their expectations, etc.).

Within a system like D&D, I might sit down expecting an old-school, megadungeon game and instead get a whole bunch of political intrigue, or a linear railroad game, or an open-world sandbox, or a Dogs-in-the-Vineyard-like scenario. I might get a game where the presumption is lots of fights, or one where there is almost no fighting. So many epxectations can be broken that it's very difficult to say that someone playing "D&D" is actually playing a game that I'd like. This is not hypothetical. I've *seen* this happen, too many times to count.

Also, I'd quibble with the argument that GURPS is deadlier than D&D. In GURPS it's fairly easy to get knocked out, but flat-out DYING is actually fairly difficult. In D&D, the difference between "alive" and "dead" is, in most editions, paper-thin.

Knaight
2016-04-20, 03:34 PM
So we can look at something like Dogs in the Vineyard as one thing, and a megadungeon crawl in the other. And while DitV can't really do a megadungeon without seriously rewriting, you can *totally* do a DitV-like game with D&D*, just by changing Mormons to Fantasy Mormons. The two versions would differ from each other in some ways, as DitV has more mechanical support to do that, but ultimately this means that the variance *within* the space of possible D&D games is *greater* than the space between D&D games and even something as extreme as Dogs in the Vineyard.

You can, but you're really fighting the system at that point. There's a lot of specific mechanics in DitV that work extremely well for what it is, and D&D is a pale shadow of it in its niche. My point is that games have distinct identities that affect how they play, and that there's enough variety among RPGs as a whole that saying that two campaigns/one shots/whatever played with the same system are effectively the same game, just being played differently. It's just that RPGs tend to have a much bigger range within RPGs than most other games. Non RPG storytelling games are close, making extremely sandboxy videogames an extremely distant third.

BRC
2016-04-20, 04:00 PM
The purpose of establishing something as a Fallacy is to state that a given line of argument is NOT always valid.

For example, somebody falling victim to the Bandwagon Fallacy is assuming that the most popular/commonly accepted option must be correct. "Car A sells better than Car B, therefore Car A is superior".
This doesn't mean that Car B is neccessarily superior, it just means that Car A's popularity is not PROOF of superiority.



In this case, what the Fallacy means is that the system being used is not always an indication of the desired type of game.

Alice says she is making a spymaster for a courtly intrigue game, using D&D 3.5.
Bob proposes a Bard/Rogue multiclass, focusing on charisma and wisdom.
Chris, seeing that Alice is playing 3.5, assumes Alice wants an optimized combat-ready character, and so proposes a single-classed Wizard, providing a list of spells to prepare for when she wants to do spymastery things. Chris criticizes Bob's proposal because it is substantially weaker in combat.

Chris, in this case, is falling victim to the proposed Fallacy. That dosn't mean that his character idea is automatically worse than Bob's, it just means that he is not necessarily right about the type of game Alice wants to play.

The purpose of establishing a Fallacy is to remind us that certain arguments or lines of thought are not always valid.

Brookshw
2016-04-20, 04:30 PM
Has anyone else noticed this and/or has the idea that this is or is not the case been formally named?

It's such a basic issue I can't think of any specific name for it aside from inconsistent definitions and unvoiced premises, the latter of which closest speaks to what I think you're questioning.

Though on second thought they are sometimes voiced and its the individuals particular experience(s) that's the unvoiced premise.

kyoryu
2016-04-20, 04:37 PM
So, I guess the thing is to kind of get a definition of what "the same game" means. We can try to come up with definitions, but to a certain extent, that gets to be arguing about the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin. So, I try to look at it functionally - how do I *use* the knowledge of something being "the same game"?

So, to me, I kind of look at it as being that a few questions should be able to be answered in the affirmative

1) If it's 'the same game', then knowing that I like the game should be sufficient, except for toxic behavior or personality disputes, for me to know I'll enjoy playing it.

2) If it's 'the same game', then advice should be equally applicable across the game.

3) If it's 'the same game', then knowing what game we're playing should be sufficient to set reasonable expectations - both my expectations for what will happen, and my understanding of what people will expect from me.

4) If it's 'the same game', my skills should transfer.

These things are true for many games. If I enjoy playing Pandemic, and someone says "hey, we're playing Pandemic, come join us," then I can be reasonably sure I'll have a good time.

Same is true with poker. If people say "hey, we're playing Texas Hold'em", and I like Texas Hold'Em, then I'll probably have fun.

These things are *not* true for *many* roleplaying games. DitV? Maybe. But not even Apocalypse World (I've been in AW games that I utterly hated, where the MC was playing by the rules). And for D&D? Not at all. Even advice differs greatly - "how should I handle character death" is just *one* area where the advice given will *drastically* differ based on the type of game you're playing. The one that transfers most is the skills used, and even that can be quite situational.

If I have enjoyed playing D&D 3x, I cannot be reasonably sure I will enjoy a different game of D&D 3x.

If I have advice, I cannot be reasonably sure it applies to any given game of D&D 3x.

I cannot be reasonably sure about expectations, either way, simply because it is a game of D&D 3x.

Most of my skills will transfer, at the least. So that's one checkmark.

(I just pick on D&D 3x here because it's a common reference point. The same points could be made for many, many RPGs).

Knaight
2016-04-20, 04:48 PM
1) If it's 'the same game', then knowing that I like the game should be sufficient, except for toxic behavior or personality disputes, for me to know I'll enjoy playing it.

2) If it's 'the same game', then advice should be equally applicable across the game.

3) If it's 'the same game', then knowing what game we're playing should be sufficient to set reasonable expectations - both my expectations for what will happen, and my understanding of what people will expect from me.

4) If it's 'the same game', my skills should transfer.

Lets see how this works with a baseline, using chess.
1) There's no guarantee. A skill gap could easily make the game unenjoyable, either because you're getting stomped with no hope of victory by someone vastly better than you, or because you're effortlessly trouncing someone.
2) There's plenty of opponent specific advice, skill level specific advice, and other similar things. So, chess fails this too.
3) Again, chess fails this. You don't necessarily know inherently if you're supposed to be playing a cut throat no holds barred game, or if you're supposed to play nicer. Are rules like "you touch it, you move it" strictly enforced?
4) Skills do transfer though, so chess catches up to D&D, with 1 point.

I'd say that in my experience, just knowing that a game is D&D (without even going into the specific edition) has generally been more than enough for me to predict what the game is going to look like to some detail. The differences between D&D games look much bigger from the inside than from the outside. This is without getting into things like Actual Plays, which are also generally pretty similar.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-20, 05:22 PM
Lets see how this works with a baseline, using chess.
1) There's no guarantee. A skill gap could easily make the game unenjoyable, either because you're getting stomped with no hope of victory by someone vastly better than you, or because you're effortlessly trouncing someone.

Player skill level is not part of the rules or game of chess, and is outside of it.



2) There's plenty of opponent specific advice, skill level specific advice, and other similar things. So, chess fails this too.

But all play advice will be applicable to the game and accurate regardless of the person receiving said advice's ability to make use of it. We aren't asking if the advice is applicable across Players.


3) Again, chess fails this. You don't necessarily know inherently if you're supposed to be playing a cut throat no holds barred game, or if you're supposed to play nicer. Are rules like "you touch it, you move it" strictly enforced?

These, except the last, are social expectations and have only tangential relation to the game itself. One may play chess with several preferred styles or strategies and still be said to be havinng similar expectations of the game to those held by another person. Both expect the pieces to behave as the rules describe, both expect the most common ruleset to be in use, at the very least.
Nitpicking over a few small things does not make this suddenly not-true. It is absolutrly the case that you can reasonably assume Bishops will move diagonally, Queens will have pretty free movements, rooks will go straight, pawn will move one square at a time and attack diagonally, Knights will be able to jump other poeces and move in an L pattern? The King will be the primary objective to capture, rules for being in Check will still apply, rules for Checkmate will apply, the list goes on. The vast, VAST majority of core rules being in play is a reasonable assumption for a chess player. One or two local rules about piece-touching do not make these into unreasonable assumptions.


4) Skills do transfer though, so chess catches up to D&D, with 1 point.

I'd say that in my experience, just knowing that a game is D&D (without even going into the specific edition) has generally been more than enough for me to predict what the game is going to look like to some detail. The differences between D&D games look much bigger from the inside than from the outside. This is without getting into things like Actual Plays, which are also generally pretty similar.

If you can form a reasonable exoectation of what the game will be like just from what game will be played, then the "fallacy" thus proposed doesn't work well.

The system used is the baseline from which outsider expectation grows. If someone says "I'm playing D&D 3.5" I can make a lot of assumptions that will be right far more often than they are wrong:
Probably fantasy.
Withiut houserules, spellcasters will be a powerful option
The campaign will involve quests and/or dungeons, possibly a big bad.
I will need to bring a 20 sided dice with me, as well as a bunch of ither polyhedral dice because D&D uses many kinds of dice. (If live. If online, I should familiarize myself with dice rolling in whatever online tool we use, because there will be lots of dice rolling.)
Unless stated otherwise, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Bard, Cleric, Barbarian, Druid, Wizard, Monk, and Sorcerer should all be valid character class choices.
The game will involve Character classes.
I should expect to ask which of the several character-stat generation rulesets we'll be using.

The list goes on.

Enforcing this "fallacy" as such just makes it harder to give advice because so many of the baseline assumptioms have to be ignored because suddenly none are valid unless stated to be so. So no one can come in and say "Hey, running a 3.5 game. Any ideas for a cool, unique encounter?" Without then being pestered about their specific D&D parameters to make sure no one is making undue assumptions. Which doesn't assist the situation at all, and just makes discussion of generalities more likely to suffer from morons making use of the Fallacy Fallacy.

kyoryu
2016-04-20, 05:28 PM
Enforcing this "fallacy" as such just makes it harder to give advice because so many of the baseline assumptioms have to be ignored because suddenly none are valid unless stated to be so. So no one can come in and say "Hey, running a 3.5 game. Any ideas for a cool, unique encounter?" Without then being pestered about their specific D&D parameters to make sure no one is making undue assumptions. Which doesn't assist the situation at all, and just makes discussion of generalities more likely to suffer from morons making use of the Fallacy Fallacy.

But... those things are helpful. As the most obvious one, advice on character death is *hugely* dependent on the style of game run.

Your assumptions for what is "normal" are not necessarily my assumptions. If I give the advice "let the dice fall as they may", that is *absolutely* appropriate for some D&D games and *hugely* inappropriate for others.

For "what do I do about death", the following advice may work:

1) It should only happen with the agreement of the players at a dramatically appropriate moment. Let them start a new character at the level of the party.
2) It can happen, but resurrection should be freely available
3) It can happen, let them come back as a new character a level lower
4) It can happen, any time, any place, roll up a level 1 character

Those are *all* valid pieces of advice, for different styles of games (substitute appropriate mechanical terms for other games). Megadungeon, open table game? Advice 4. Heavily story-game style? Advice 1. Linear railroad type thing? Probably 2 or 3.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-20, 05:48 PM
But... those things are helpful. As the most obvious one, advice on character death is *hugely* dependent on the style of game run.

Your assumptions for what is "normal" are not necessarily my assumptions. If I give the advice "let the dice fall as they may", that is *absolutely* appropriate for some D&D games and *hugely* inappropriate for others.


Sure. But those playstyles are not native to the rules of the game, even though the rules offer options for certain styles. There is nothing in chess telling me that using Rooks as my key offensive piece is a good or bad idea, or making any sort of judgement call of that nature. What the rules DO tell me is "Rooks move like this."

Expanding to D&D, there are pretty much no rules about how D&D should be DMed, and the system gives little to no advice on the subject except for Rule 0, which isn't really so much a rule as a way to let players be their balance-fixers. Playstyles for D&D are not built into D&D, and so they aren't a valid assumption to make about the system at all, becausr it's not an assumption about the system. It's an assumption about the GM, which is different.

Cluedrew
2016-04-20, 05:52 PM
Player skill level is not part of the rules or game of chess, and is outside of it.But isn't that the whole point of Same Game Fallacy? That things outside of the rules of the game can effect the experience you have while playing it. {SwordSaged, ImNotTrevor made another related post.}

Also it occurred to me that we (this thread) have been arguing about "different game systems create different experiences" and not "the same game system create the same experience", my reading of the fallacy. Even if we assume that all games played in system X will be different from all games played in system Y (or even more different from games in Y than other games in X) that still does not mean that two games played in system X will be even roughly the same.

kyoryu
2016-04-20, 06:09 PM
Expanding to D&D, there are pretty much no rules about how D&D should be DMed, and the system gives little to no advice on the subject except for Rule 0, which isn't really so much a rule as a way to let players be their balance-fixers. Playstyles for D&D are not built into D&D, and so they aren't a valid assumption to make about the system at all, becausr it's not an assumption about the system. It's an assumption about the GM, which is different.

Yes. Which is exactly why "we're playing D&D" (or many other RPGs) is insufficient information to know what the game is going to be like. That is precisely the point.

I mean, pretty clearly, saying "we're playing D&D 3x" means that we're using the rules of 3x, and therefore we can assume that the things that 3x spells out are true, is a fair assumption.

I guess some people have argued before that's not true (OMG I replaced classes with skills and d20s with 3d1000 and swapped out the square grid for a hex grid and replaced hit points with a jenga tower, but it's REALLY D&D GUYS AND HOW DARE YOU SAY IT'S NOT), but that's not a claim I'd make.

BTW, that's not snark there. I have seen people argue about various systems that they've heavily, HEAVILY house-ruled that they're still playing "the same game." And while that's reasonable for some set of changes, it gets silly at some point - usually, when the "trueness" of the previously proposed questions dramatically decreases.

So, if what you're arguing is that "if you're saying you're playing D&D3, you should be able to assume the rules of D&D3 hold mostly if not entirely true", then yeah, I'd agree with that 100%. The only point I've been arguing is that the things *not* specified by the rules can impact the at-table experience as much or more than the actual rules, and so assuming that you have a very strong handle on the at-table experience based on just the ruleset is a poor assumption for many cases. (Of course, as acknowledged earlier, that is a better assumption for some games than others).

Knaight
2016-04-20, 06:58 PM
If you can form a reasonable exoectation of what the game will be like just from what game will be played, then the "fallacy" thus proposed doesn't work well.
My point is, chess is obviously a game. We all agree on that. However, using the definition given, it comes across as not a game, suggesting the definition is all sorts of iffy. It also lines up fairly well with D&D even by those metrics, suggesting strongly that D&D (at least an individual edition of it) is a game. We're in agreement on this one, the fallacy doesn't hold.


Yes. Which is exactly why "we're playing D&D" (or many other RPGs) is insufficient information to know what the game is going to be like. That is precisely the point.

So, if what you're arguing is that "if you're saying you're playing D&D3, you should be able to assume the rules of D&D3 hold mostly if not entirely true", then yeah, I'd agree with that 100%. The only point I've been arguing is that the things *not* specified by the rules can impact the at-table experience as much or more than the actual rules, and so assuming that you have a very strong handle on the at-table experience based on just the ruleset is a poor assumption for many cases. (Of course, as acknowledged earlier, that is a better assumption for some games than others).
It's sufficient information to make a whole bunch of guesses, including things not strictly within the rules, which often come out the exact same. On top of that, the extreme variance between games with different rules suggests that the at-table experience is far more informed by the rules set than it is given credit for.

Essentially, we're running into the connoisseur problem, where people who have a very in depth knowledge of a class of things (in this case, D&D games) see much bigger differences than people who aren't, and then extrapolate those differences to be much bigger than they are because they're looking very closely. You can get the exact same thing, where wine connosuers can argue that a category like "white wine" is useless because there's so much variation between them, while for the rest of us who are looking at beverages in general and not just wine, it's a perfectly good category the vast majority of the time, which occasionally needs to be looked at more deeply.

kyoryu
2016-04-20, 07:12 PM
Essentially, we're running into the connoisseur problem, where people who have a very in depth knowledge of a class of things (in this case, D&D games) see much bigger differences than people who aren't, and then extrapolate those differences to be much bigger than they are because they're looking very closely. You can get the exact same thing, where wine connosuers can argue that a category like "white wine" is useless because there's so much variation between them, while for the rest of us who are looking at beverages in general and not just wine, it's a perfectly good category the vast majority of the time, which occasionally needs to be looked at more deeply.

I don't think I agree. I think there's sufficient difference between "storygame-like" D&D and "megadungeon crawl" D&D (as two points of the spectrum) that it's worth discussing.

How many threads do we have on this forum asking if "xyz is okay?" and we see a large split based on various assumptions? Or, as I've said, how death is handled (which is pretty major).

In a real example, I ran a game where a tournament was going on. The tournament was stated previously to be teams of four. There were five players at the table. Should I have changed the tournament to be teams of five? The answer to that is entirely dependent on a number of assumptions and none of them are "right" or "wrong". If you assume that the game is really revolving around the party, then yes, I should. If you assume that the world is the world and so it goes, then no, it wouldn't make sense to do that, and having those mismatches can actually help the feeling that the world is a place with its own reality and not custom-designed for the party (not to mention if you actually do an open table where the number of PCs can fluctuate wildly per session). Or, from the same session, if you've got a hero of the arena, how does he react to the PCs? If they're just random guys until they prove themselves, he should act one way. If they're the Destined Heroes of Destiny, he should act a different way. Neither is right. Both will, can, and *did* bother players that held the opposite expectations.

Knaight
2016-04-20, 07:21 PM
I don't think I agree. I think there's sufficient difference between "storygame-like" D&D and "megadungeon crawl" D&D (as two points of the spectrum) that it's worth discussing.

How many threads do we have on this forum asking if "xyz is okay?" and we see a large split based on various assumptions? Or, as I've said, how death is handled (which is pretty major).

You get this split with other games though, it's not an RPG thing. In competitive Dominions 3, what is the policy on the use of gem generation magic items? Can you play EA Lanka at all, or are they banned? Are you allowed to break a non-aggression pact? If you use the game messaging system to arrange a trade, are you obligated to follow through?

All of these vary. That doesn't mean it's not a game though, just that different people play it differently, which is true of pretty much every game ever made. That D&D also gets played differently by different people doesn't make it stop being a game.

kyoryu
2016-04-20, 07:32 PM
You get this split with other games though, it's not an RPG thing. In competitive Dominions 3, what is the policy on the use of gem generation magic items? Can you play EA Lanka at all, or are they banned? Are you allowed to break a non-aggression pact? If you use the game messaging system to arrange a trade, are you obligated to follow through?

All of these vary. That doesn't mean it's not a game though, just that different people play it differently, which is true of pretty much every game ever made. That D&D also gets played differently by different people doesn't make it stop being a game.

I think you're getting a bit caught up on terminology. I'm not saying D&D isn't "a game". I'm saying that simply saying "we're playing D&D version x" doesn't really give enough information to accurately describe what actually happens at an actual individual table.

I'm not familiar with Dominions 3, but I suspect that those differences are minor compared to DragonLance vs. Undermountain vs. Storygame styles of play.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-20, 09:16 PM
I think you're getting a bit caught up on terminology. I'm not saying D&D isn't "a game". I'm saying that simply saying "we're playing D&D version x" doesn't really give enough information to accurately describe what actually happens at an actual individual table.

I'm not familiar with Dominions 3, but I suspect that those differences are minor compared to DragonLance vs. Undermountain vs. Storygame styles of play.

No one has ever, in my experience, said that playing a certain gamr equates to certain exact things happening at a table. And, most of the table-experience in non-game stuff. In The Rules of Play, a textbook on games and their functions, this is (unless I'm mistaken, I will double check when I get home) the 2nd magic circle of a game.
A game has certain levels of interaction and activity called the "Magic Circles"
The 1st is just the interacts occuring as part of the game. Pawn takes Bishop, Jugnut rolls a Search Check, etc. It is the pure "gamespace."
The 2nd Magic Circle is the interactions between those actively playing the game. These can include both game-focused and non-game focused interaction. For Chess, this would be calling out moves or trashtalking or small talk between the players. They are both actively engaged with the game, but also with one another. For D&D this includes calling out rolls, most DM fluff description, jokes, and roleplay (unless there are legitimate rules for roleplay, but RPs position can flow between 1st and 2nd circle)
The 3rd Magic Circle is the people observing the gameplay, but not playing. They may interact with eachother and the players, but not the game.
The 4th Magic Circle is people near the game but not watching. They can interact with the watchers of the game, and may transfer to the 3rd circle, but typically don't.

The system has a large impact on the 1st circle and a moderate impact on the 2nd. The people and environment only affect the 2nd circle (unless the DM changes or quick-calls a rule on the spot, but these are brief dips) and the 3rd. The further away from the 1st circle you go, the less influence a thing has on said circle.

That's why the fallacy doesn't make sense. It argues that nongame has a bigger impact on gameplay than game does. Which is silly.
Nongame has a huge impact on nongame (playing with friends is more fun than playing with enemies or strangers, but not because of anything to do with the game.)
Just keep each sphere in its own sphere. Once you start trying to overlap them, you get into nebulous territory where things resist absolutes of any sort.

Cluedrew
2016-04-20, 09:34 PM
That's why the fallacy doesn't make sense. It argues that nongame has a bigger impact on gameplay than game does.I'm pretty sure all it is saying is that factors outside of the system/game effect the gameplay. As in a non-zero amount, or perhaps we should say a non-trivial or significant amount.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-21, 02:44 AM
I'm pretty sure all it is saying is that factors outside of the system/game effect the gameplay. As in a non-zero amount, or perhaps we should say a non-trivial or significant amount.

You sure that's the only argument being made here?




Looking into I agree with you, and would go so far as to say that the group matters significantly more than the system.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm

That's a tad more than non-trivial, don't you think?
And that's the problem.

If the group has a greater impact on how the game plays than the game does, then why do we have multiple rpgs? There would be no need for that if you could just assemble the right group to make any RPG do anything.

Keltest
2016-04-21, 04:31 AM
I think you're getting a bit caught up on terminology. I'm not saying D&D isn't "a game". I'm saying that simply saying "we're playing D&D version x" doesn't really give enough information to accurately describe what actually happens at an actual individual table.

I'm not familiar with Dominions 3, but I suspect that those differences are minor compared to DragonLance vs. Undermountain vs. Storygame styles of play.

I disagree. Knowing the system may not tell us exactly whats going on in their game, but it does allow us to direct follow up questions in a much more specific manner to solve the problem or understand what is happening in a presented scenario. Furthermore, different systems are good at different things, and people have a tendency to actually pick systems that work better for what they want to do if they can help it. D&D has a lot of combat mechanic support, but not much framework for economic simulators or large scale political machinations being done by the players. Therefore its likely that the players are front line movers and shakers who are thwarting assassins or hunting down wizards or some such, and not sitting around rolling diplomacy rolls all day to rule a kingdom.

Cluedrew
2016-04-21, 06:42 AM
You sure that's the only argument being made here?I'm 90-95% sure that is all Kelb was saying. Although the reason I brought it up is because I noticed a lot of people are arguing about something else.

kyoryu
2016-04-21, 10:58 AM
I disagree. Knowing the system may not tell us exactly whats going on in their game, but it does allow us to direct follow up questions in a much more specific manner to solve the problem or understand what is happening in a presented scenario.

Absolutely. But the fact that the questions still need to be asked just confirms that it's not really the same game.

Look, we can have three people show up to a D&D game (again, picking on D&D out of familiarity).

1) The person who expects an old-school dungeon crawl. Shows up with nothing, figuring they'll make characters and they're not really important til level 4, anyway.

2) The person that shows up with an optimized build, and a plan for where they expect that build to go including items they expect to 'find', expecting a series of combats linked together with mostly irrelevant things linking them together (since they can't impact those anyway, as the adventure path is probably set)

3) The person that shows up with a huge backstory, expecting the GM to incorporate that deeply into the game, where the result of the game and where the story goes are dependent on the backstories of the characters and the actions of the players as much as anything else.

I don't think it's accurate to say that those people are playing the same game. In fact, I'd argue that almost any game you could throw at them would please some of them (maybe only one) and anger at least one other. Those are significant differences in what they want, and I'd argue that those differences are more significant than how a sword hit is resolved.

Knaight
2016-04-21, 12:56 PM
I'm 90-95% sure that is all Kelb was saying. Although the reason I brought it up is because I noticed a lot of people are arguing about something else.
Here's the original definition, for reference:


I posit that it is a logical fallacy that any two people who are using the same TTRPG system are necessesarily playing the same game.

Seeing as how we've demonstrated reasonably well that every game has some degree of variance in it, that different games of the same system are different doesn't make them different games. As such, saying that all that's being said is that there is variability within groups for one game isn't much. On top of that, there's enough variability on the system side to cover fundamentally different games, and for individual systems to have a particular identity, which also contributes to them being accurately categorized as the same game.

Cluedrew
2016-04-21, 03:01 PM
I did double check the original definition, but since Kelb_Panthera hasn't said anything in a while why don't I explain how I expanded the statement.

Original: "I posit that it is a logical fallacy that any two people who are using the same TTRPG system are necessesarily playing the same game."

Becomes: "I will suggest that the following is not true in all cases: If two separate people are playing the same TTRPG system, than there the difference in their play experience for that game is insignificant."

So if there exists two people and a table-top role-playing system such that those two people have played that system and have had significant differences in their play experience than the fallacy is indeed a fallacy and not a correct statement. Most of this is pretty straight forward. The sticking points seem to be "game experience" (to me, it is primarily the emotions invoked and the skills used, amount and kind in both cases while playing) and "significant" (best benchmark I've seen here is if you need to ask for clarification to provide good advice it is significant).

That is my view on the situation, boiled down as close to the core as I could get with the time I had.

Knaight
2016-04-21, 03:58 PM
So if there exists two people and a table-top role-playing system such that those two people have played that system and have had significant differences in their play experience than the fallacy is indeed a fallacy and not a correct statement. Most of this is pretty straight forward. The sticking points seem to be "game experience" (to me, it is primarily the emotions invoked and the skills used, amount and kind in both cases while playing) and "significant" (best benchmark I've seen here is if you need to ask for clarification to provide good advice it is significant).

Is football a game? I'd argue yes (in that sports are a subset of games), but the NFL and FIFA play completely differently than competitive highschool teams which play completely differently than recreational leagues. The way game is being defined here is way narrower than the definition used everywhere else. For that matter, so is significant; good advice can vary heavily in other games. Take games with a social and deception aspect, where the sort of things that work against groups that aren't surprisingly adept at backstabbing and intrigue collapse horribly in groups that do. Take large scale strategy games, where strategies like being really aggressive and vindictive works beautifully to keep people from messing with you with some groups and paints a target on your back for every other player in others.

Plus, take those three players that kyoryu posted about, and assume each is in a game tailored to their style. All three games are almost certainly going to be about professional adventurers doing combat heavy adventuring in a fantasy world. All three are likely to share a large amount of specific details on the play experience side because of the specifics of how D&D is built. All three are likely to show similarities in structure even beyond the rules of the game, such as the whole quest line thing that the DMG pushes so heavily, even if the specifics of that vary a bit. All three are going to be dominated by the apprentice to god structure on the system side. Yes, the effects of the group are far from insignificant, but somehow I doubt the fallacy was supposed to be for an argument that has, as far as I know, literally never been made anywhere on this forum.

On the other hand, if you're not used to seeing the huge structure of similarities challenged, then the differences suddenly seem to be much bigger than they are. If the design space of an individual game is well understood, but the design space of RPGs as a whole drastically underestimated, the system appears to mater far less than it does, and variation is exaggerated. It's like looking at maps with different scales. If you're looking at a city map to do something where that scale is relevant, then the idea that two things are in basically the same place because they're both in the same city is ridiculous. They could be completely across the city from each other, and that matters. If you're looking on a globe to do something where that scale is relevant, the idea that two things are in basically the same place because they're both in the same city makes a lot of sense.

kyoryu
2016-04-22, 08:49 AM
but somehow I doubt the fallacy was supposed to be for an argument that has, as far as I know, literally never been made anywhere on this forum.

Are you kidding? It's made *all the time*. Implicitly, yes, but damn near every contentious thread on this site boils down to the fact that different people play RPGs in VERY different ways.

I mean, one word: jedipotter.

OldTrees1
2016-04-22, 09:14 AM
Are you kidding? It's made *all the time*. Implicitly, yes, but damn near every contentious thread on this site boils down to the fact that different people play RPGs in VERY different ways.

I mean, one word: jedipotter.

Yes, however I wonder: How often would the appeal to authority inherent in the name dropping of a named fallacy help those cases? (obviously relative to not name dropping and merely using common language and examples)

For this particular fallacy?
In the 30+ page argument threads -> No benefit
In the "OP asks for help with X but gets replies about Y" case -> I think a gentle reminder would do much better than an accusation of fallacy

Cluedrew
2016-04-22, 01:50 PM
Well, kyoryu made the reply to Knaight I was going to. Although I will also conceded that it is not an important distinction in some conversations. However in some conversations the system itself is unimportant, role-playing game is enough information (particularly when talking to non-gamers).

I would also like to agree with OldTrees1 that using it as an accusation is almost never going to be useful. So even if it qualifies as a logical fallacy by the technical definition, maybe it would be better to frame it as a "law", "rule" or "reminder" or something that offends people less.

Knaight
2016-04-22, 02:52 PM
Are you kidding? It's made *all the time*. Implicitly, yes, but damn near every contentious thread on this site boils down to the fact that different people play RPGs in VERY different ways.

I mean, one word: jedipotter.

That's a distinct argument. The one we're looking at is "all games of a given RPG are the same", the jedipotter verison is more like "Swine, my game is better than all of yours, you should switch to the way I do it because I'm a better DM than all of you put together, because you pansies are too unwilling to punish the PCs with judicious use of Orcus".

It's also a completely different argument, and it's not about failing to recognize that there are differences. It's about failing to recognize that other peoples methods may be better for them than yours are.

Cluedrew
2016-04-22, 03:57 PM
Or perhaps more diplomatically, "not recognizing that other play styles exist" is different from "not recognizing that other valid play styles exist".

Well I will still argue that the fallacy has been made a few times because... well... I've made that mistake, or one close to it, a few times. In fact I'm pretty sure this has been the "wall" we have been hitting over in Hey you darn kids get off my edition! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483843-Hey-you-darn-kids-get-off-my-edition!) In that case it is play style as in story told. In games about stories, that is to me a pretty big part of play style, although I could see arguments the other way.

kyoryu
2016-04-22, 04:34 PM
Well, kyoryu made the reply to Knaight I was going to. Although I will also conceded that it is not an important distinction in some conversations. However in some conversations the system itself is unimportant, role-playing game is enough information (particularly when talking to non-gamers).

Well, I think that's fair. To outsiders, all RPGs are pretty much the same damn thing.

However, *within* the hobby, it's useful to remember that even within a given system, the goals and objectives and needs fulfilled by the game can and do vary quite dramatically from group to group.

I mean, look at the number of people, *even in this thread*, talking about how games are about stories? That is utterly not a valid assumption, as there are game types that are *not* about stories in any way that we'd recognize them (specifically, open-table, megadungeon exploration type games). So advice like "well, do what the story requires" is utterly useless if not actively hostile to someone playing in that style of game.

Cluedrew
2016-04-22, 04:48 PM
... {re-reads own post} Yep, I just did that.

Which is why at the very least it is a valid reminder. Because I knew that but then I forgot. I am slightly tempted to make an argument about cooperative survival/tactical games, but in the other end that counts too.

kyoryu
2016-04-22, 05:28 PM
In all honesty, I may be more sensitive to this than others, since I've played in a really old-school game (open-table, megadungeon), and have also immersed myself in more story-based gameplay (like Fate-style). They're based on such utterly different assumptions that, since both styles are valid in quite a number of games, I personally find it difficult to give advice without clarification of what type of game is actually occurring first.

Keltest
2016-04-22, 05:46 PM
In all honesty, I may be more sensitive to this than others, since I've played in a really old-school game (open-table, megadungeon), and have also immersed myself in more story-based gameplay (like Fate-style). They're based on such utterly different assumptions that, since both styles are valid in quite a number of games, I personally find it difficult to give advice without clarification of what type of game is actually occurring first.

What sort of questions are you seeing that are open ended enough that you need clarification on game style but specific enough that you don't need other clarification anyway?

Knaight
2016-04-22, 11:11 PM
In all honesty, I may be more sensitive to this than others, since I've played in a really old-school game (open-table, megadungeon), and have also immersed myself in more story-based gameplay (like Fate-style). They're based on such utterly different assumptions that, since both styles are valid in quite a number of games, I personally find it difficult to give advice without clarification of what type of game is actually occurring first.

I've also played in this variety, but I'd consider system to be at least as important as this. Two D&D campaigns, one of which is the Grey Marches style megadungeon and one of which is the Dragonlance style story based play honestly seem pretty similar to me. I might just be unusually sensitive to the system modeling side.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-22, 11:43 PM
I did argue at one point about systems supporting or not supporting certain kinds of Narratives and Stories, but with the inclusion of Narrative, pretty much any sequence of events being recounted fits into the term "narrative."

Since RPGs do involve a sequence of events, they all have a narrative. Pretty much all games do, even Tetris. (The narrative of which is "blocks fall and are cleared until the player can't keep up anymore.") Tetris doesn't have a Story, but it has a Narrative.

Even megadungeons and modular adventures with no story ties will end up having a Narrative. Systems will vary in the kinds of Narratives/ Stories they can portray. D&D does megadungeons very well. Apocalypse World doesnt.

So yes, it is valid to compare the common narratives most supported by different games.

The difference between having a megadungeon on the moon and having one in an ancient dead city, is trivial. Both will frame roughly the same narrative structure. It has been theorized that there are only 7 kinds of plot structure, into which all plots can easily fit, outlined in the book The Seven Basic Plots.

Namely:
Overcoming the Monster (common in D&D)

Rags to Riches (Despite getting wealthy, D&D characters rarely follow this plot structure)

The Quest (Duh.)

The Voyage and Return (also duh)

Comedy (Surprisingly often, since Comedy here doesn't refer to humor)

Tragedy (Not often except maybe individual character arcs.)

Rebirth (Occasionally used as individual character arcs, but not as the basis for a Campaign narrative.)

So yeah, the amount of basic plot structures is amazingly finite, even when accounting for hybrids of these.

We like to think that the amount of different plots is infinite, but it really isn't. The amount of different details is vast, but in terms of overall structures, that number is shockingly small.

How does this relate?

Because saying there is an endless number of differences between any two stories is just not entirely accurate. Based on the minutia of a story, sure. But narrative structures are exceptionally hard to innovate (no one has done it in a few centuries) and your GM is unlikely to be the one to create a new narrative structure.

So yeah, saying that certain games will support certain narrative structures is rock-solid. It doesn't matter if The Quest is to Mount Doom or to The Dark Continent, it's still The Quest.

Lorsa
2016-04-23, 02:00 AM
Because saying there is an endless number of differences between any two stories is just not entirely accurate. Based on the minutia of a story, sure. But narrative structures are exceptionally hard to innovate (no one has done it in a few centuries) and your GM is unlikely to be the one to create a new narrative structure.

Innovation is overrated anyway. It's very hard to make something good the first time you try, so it's generally better to do something old and simply to make it better.

Too often I've seen GMs trying to be "innovate", and it falls flat on the face.

Bayar
2016-04-23, 08:08 AM
Went and checked RPG Cliche List (http://www.criticalmiss.com/issue7/rpgcliche1.html). This sounds like a variation of the Calvinball Rule.


Calvinball Rule. In the end, many gamemasters use their own setting and/or change a game's rules beyond all recognition anyway. (So named for the imaginary, make-your-own-rules sport from Calvin and Hobbes.) If we wanted to be really silly, we could also call this the Law Of The Golden Rule.

Jay R
2016-04-23, 12:48 PM
If the group has a greater impact on how the game plays than the game does, then why do we have multiple rpgs?

Because more than one group of people want to make money selling rpgs, of course.

There is no connection between number of games available and how much difference there is between groups. None at all. This is a complete non-sequitur.

Also because the same group of people like doing different things together.

Playing Champions with Rob, Nolen, Glen, Jon, and Jann is very similar to playing D&D with them. But I've never played a game with them that is at all like some of the D&D games described in these forums.

I thank my lucky stars for the people I've played with every time I read about a dysfunctional group. But I also like doing more than one activity with the same group of people.

I've played original D&D. AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, D&D 3.5e, Champions, Flashing Blades, and other games with more-or-less the same group of people. We've also fenced together, watched the Super Bowl and had parties.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-23, 01:50 PM
Because more than one group of people want to make money selling rpgs, of course.

They would fail to do so because no demand would exist. The first Generic RPG would cover all bases. Possibly the first 2. The lack of success in the rest of the market would quickly kill it, and that first generic rpg would be all that was left. (That, or the cheapest rpg would win.)



There is no connection between number of games available and how much difference there is between groups. None at all. This is a complete non-sequitur.

There is a correlation (a real one, not one of those pure happenstance ones) between the amount of icecream sold in a given period and how much crime is committed. Both are caused by a third thing (Temperature) but they are definitely linked. The same is true here. If the biggest difference between two gaming experiences is the group, then there is no reason to ever switch systems. It would be a complete waste of time and money compared to switching groups, and no one would do it. And yet they do. Often. And in the case of my group, does so and has opinions about what games we want to play again, what games we disliked, etc. If the biggest difference was the group, we would probably not have such conversations because the difference between Stars Without Number and Shadowrun would be minimal (It isn't) compared to playing Stars Without Number with 4 different people.



Also because the same group of people like doing different things together.

Playing Champions with Rob, Nolen, Glen, Jon, and Jann is very similar to playing D&D with them. But I've never played a game with them that is at all like some of the D&D games described in these forums.

So the things are different.

But not different.



I thank my lucky stars for the people I've played with every time I read about a dysfunctional group. But I also like doing more than one activity with the same group of people.

I've played original D&D. AD&D 1e, AD&D 2e, D&D 3.5e, Champions, Flashing Blades, and other games with more-or-less the same group of people. We've also fenced together, watched the Super Bowl and had parties.

As I've said before, no one has actually shown how the First Magic Circle (the gamespace and actual play experience) was made to be significantly different due to who was present. The Second Magic Circle (interpersonal interaction between players of the same game), yes. But not the former.

What has been equated is the the Game Experience and the Table Experience. Yes, talking to my group feels familiar, we get along, we have similar interests, and I can usually predict their reactions to my awful puns. I know, generally, what kinds of characters they're going to play in any given system. We play other board games and videogames together, and there is a familiarity with the group.

That is an entirely different thing from the gameplay experience. The table feel between Stars Without Number and Shadowrun is very similar. I know Kevin will play someone smart, logical, and probably in a support position but will sometimes go mage-like. Dia will play the hardcore chick who rocks the damage. Crow will play the weirdest possible thing, but with a pretty good setup. Troy will play a character that's almost a joke.

But!

That doesn't mean that the experience in-game between the systems we choose to play is made functionally the same.

You can't equate gameplay experience and table experience. They aren't the same thing.

Cluedrew
2016-04-23, 02:10 PM
If the system matters more than the group, why are there dysfunctional gaming groups?

Really the answer is simple, they both effect the experience you have while playing the game.

Jay R
2016-04-23, 02:53 PM
They would fail to do so because no demand would exist....

I wrote a long point-by-point rebuttal of this, and then decided to delete it. There’s no point. We’re arguing past each other.

I'm no longer even interested in convincing you. I just want to get you to see what the others are saying.

You are claiming that if you look at only the things affected by the rules, then the rules have the most effect on those isolated aspects.

I don’t think anybody here would deny that. But I also don’t think anybody else here is talking about it.

I don't care about your "First Magic Circle" and "Second Magic Circle". I don't care about your distinction between the "gameplay experience" and the "table experience."

We are talking about the whole gaming experience, not an arbitrary subset of it. You are correct about the arbitrary subset you’re talking about.

None of which changes the fact that the group has more effect on the entire gaming experience than the rules system does.

I didn’t say that that was the only difference.
I didn’t say that the experience is “functionally the same” under any rules system.
I didn’t say that the changes would be “minimal” under any rules system.

I said that change A is bigger than change B.

Do we understand each other now?

Tvtyrant
2016-04-23, 03:13 PM
I am not sure I would call this a fallacy, but there is certainly something disconcerting about the generalizations that stem from the idea. For instance people calling 4E a skirmish game and then claiming that people playing it are therefore not roleplaying, or that 3.5 players are all power gamers as a result of playing an easily exploitable game (but less so than M&M).

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-23, 07:38 PM
I wrote a long point-by-point rebuttal of this, and then decided to delete it. There’s no point. We’re arguing past each other.

I'm no longer even interested in convincing you. I just want to get you to see what the others are saying.

You are claiming that if you look at only the things affected by the rules, then the rules have the most effect on those isolated aspects.

I don’t think anybody here would deny that. But I also don’t think anybody else here is talking about it.

I don't care about your "First Magic Circle" and "Second Magic Circle". I don't care about your distinction between the "gameplay experience" and the "table experience."

We are talking about the whole gaming experience, not an arbitrary subset of it. You are correct about the arbitrary subset you’re talking about.

None of which changes the fact that the group has more effect on the entire gaming experience than the rules system does.

I didn’t say that that was the only difference.
I didn’t say that the experience is “functionally the same” under any rules system.
I didn’t say that the changes would be “minimal” under any rules system.

I said that change A is bigger than change B.

Do we understand each other now?

I understand. And continue to disagree with the stated premise.

At the most, the two are two equal halves of the same experience. But the "fallacy" as stated assumes that the Game as the Gameplay Experience and the Game as the Table Experience. are equal terms. They are not.

Cluedrew
2016-04-23, 09:36 PM
To Tvtyrant: Stereotypes, even the correct ones can be harmful.

To ImNotTrevor: I'll admit I'm confused by the difference between Game Experience and Table Experience. Because my current understanding means that Game Experience cannot exist because there would be no body in the First Circle to experience it. ... I've sat here for about 5 minutes thinking about what I can add, but I got nothing other than a request that you explain the difference again and as carefully as you can.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-23, 10:28 PM
To Tvtyrant: Stereotypes, even the correct ones can be harmful.

To ImNotTrevor: I'll admit I'm confused by the difference between Game Experience and Table Experience. Because my current understanding means that Game Experience cannot exist because there would be no body in the First Circle to experience it. ... I've sat here for about 5 minutes thinking about what I can add, but I got nothing other than a request that you explain the difference again and as carefully as you can.

The first problem is that you're equating the two needing to coexist with the two being the same. That's not true. (The second circle can't exist without the first, either. Its existence explicitly requires a game. They are mutually dependent, yet still not the same thing.)

But I can re-define them for you.

The First Circle is only interactions pertaining directly to the game itself and its rules/mechanics. For chess, that is things like the moves the pieces make, the players declaring said moves, etc. In Blackjack, saying things like "Hit me" and placing bets would be First Circle activity. So, the first circle involves players interacting directly with the game itself, and with eachother strictly within game context.

The second circle is interactions between players not directly tied to the game, but still between players of the game. Puns, side comments, conversation about what to do next, etc are all Second Circle activities.

Kelb_Panthera
2016-04-24, 01:29 AM
The first problem is that you're equating the two needing to coexist with the two being the same. That's not true. (The second circle can't exist without the first, either. Its existence explicitly requires a game. They are mutually dependent, yet still not the same thing.)

But I can re-define them for you.

The First Circle is only interactions pertaining directly to the game itself and its rules/mechanics. For chess, that is things like the moves the pieces make, the players declaring said moves, etc. In Blackjack, saying things like "Hit me" and placing bets would be First Circle activity. So, the first circle involves players interacting directly with the game itself, and with eachother strictly within game context.

The second circle is interactions between players not directly tied to the game, but still between players of the game. Puns, side comments, conversation about what to do next, etc are all Second Circle activities.

Here's the thing. In TTRPG's it's -explicitly- layed out in the rules that the second circle will influence the first; rule 0. Unlike in chess the rules that define the first circle are fluid to a certain, variable degree as part of the rules of the game itself.

And in any case, splitting this particular hair ignores the fact that the vast majority of hobbyists use the term "game experience" to describe -both- of these things as a whole rather than two distinct parts. You've acknowledged that they influence each other even in much more rigid games, such as board games. To ignore that they influence each other to an enormous degree in the much more fluid realm of TTRPG's is.... odd, to say the least.

Gotta say, I didn't expect this to spiral into a 4 page discussion. I'm curious how this whole thing will turn out.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-24, 04:54 AM
Here's the thing. In TTRPG's it's -explicitly- layed out in the rules that the second circle will influence the first; rule 0. Unlike in chess the rules that define the first circle are fluid to a certain, variable degree as part of the rules of the game itself.

And in any case, splitting this particular hair ignores the fact that the vast majority of hobbyists use the term "game experience" to describe -both- of these things as a whole rather than two distinct parts. You've acknowledged that they influence each other even in much more rigid games, such as board games. To ignore that they influence each other to an enormous degree in the much more fluid realm of TTRPG's is.... odd, to say the least.

Gotta say, I didn't expect this to spiral into a 4 page discussion. I'm curious how this whole thing will turn out.

Rule 0 is a player interacting directly with the game, so no. That's First Circle. Roleplaying is our sticky one, because it straddles the line between the 1st and 2nd circles and doesn't have a clear place. (By roleplaying I mean talking in character) but I would say it has to do with the First Circle more than the second.

Remember: The interactions in each circle are:

1st: Players with Game and Game with Game

2nd: Players with Players

3rd: Observers with Players

4th: Non-observers with Observers

I never said there was no influence. I said assuming that one has majority influence over the other is inaccurate, and that there ARE two layers of experience that are two different things. It's perhaps a bit more technical, but the difference between the Table Experience and the Game Experience can be seen in some dysfunctional groups. People who really enjoy the campaign and characters (Game Experience), but some of the player behaviors annoy them (Table Experience.)

It can be compared to playing a really fun game with a small, tantrum-prone child. You might have fun with the game, but your couch-experience will likely be less than pleasant unless you change how you play the game, which would also affect the fun you are having there.

I'm sorry if I contributed to the length. I find the science and study of games to be fascinating, to the degree I actually did purchase and read multiple books about games, play, and game design. Games are complex things, so assigning too big an amount of power over the overall experience to what is actually just one of the many strong influences is going to cause problems.

Cluedrew
2016-04-24, 07:38 AM
That makes a bit more sense, I didn't realize the players were included at all until the second circle.

Still I think most people talk about... lets say play experience = game experience + table experience + {maybe some more things}. It may not be precise, but it is close enough for most people.

Also I think the type of game can effect your interaction with the rules. As a simple example you will spend a lot less time on the social interaction rules in a dungeon dive vs. a intrigue game.

OldTrees1
2016-04-24, 08:01 AM
I'm sorry if I contributed to the length. I find the science and study of games to be fascinating, to the degree I actually did purchase and read multiple books about games, play, and game design. Games are complex things, so assigning too big an amount of power over the overall experience to what is actually just one of the many strong influences is going to cause problems.

So since you have now fully stated your position on your tangent, back to the topic :smalltongue:?

The proposed fallacy that Kelb_Panthera was suggesting become a named fallacy is not about "assuming that one has majority influence over the other" but rather is more about not recognizing a specific one of those influences.

Thinking about all the cases where this error occurs (help threads, long arguments with Darth Ultron, helping create stereotypes), I think recognizing and overcoming the error is wise but that using a name would neither add clarity nor increase success rate. Thoughts?

kyoryu
2016-04-24, 10:06 AM
Been away a few days. Wall o' responses incoming. Sorry.


What sort of questions are you seeing that are open ended enough that you need clarification on game style but specific enough that you don't need other clarification anyway?

I think I've given a number of these in this thread, but I'll lay a few out explicitly.

Let's assume three game styles (there are others as well):

1) Old School Open-Table Meatgrinder Megadungeon (MD for short). In this style, there is no 'party'. Whoever shows up that night plays, and they might play one of many different characters depending on who else is there. Character death happens, but it's not the end of the world. Like losing a soldier in X-COM, it sucks, but you've got more soldiers. A typical game session involves going into The Megadungeon that the game revolves around, and seeing where you can get and how much loot you can retrieve.

2) Linear Story Choo Choo (LS): There's a plot. It's a grand plot, and it has lots of things in it. You probably don't have much control, as a player, over the end of the plot (it might have already been written if using a published module), but there could be some off-branches or things like that. The Party is The Party. The assumption is you've got the same people playing each week, with the same characters. The characters probably won't impact the story *too* much, since it was written in advance, and very possibly without the characters in mind.

3) Hippy Dippy Storygame (SG): There's a plot, but it's not pre-written. Rather, it comes out as a matter of playing the game. Character backstories matter, as in a well done SG many of the threats or bad guys will be in some way related to the PCs or their histories. Nobody, not even the GM, knows what is necessarily going to happen. Much like a TV show, the plot intertwines around the characters, and would be totally different if different characters were involved.

(please note that I've attempted to keep my snarkiness level roughly equal for all styles of game)

So, some questions that I can answer *reasonably* for each style, but where I'd need to know which style is actually being used to answer effectively, but where that + system is enough to answer the question effectively:

I'm starting a new campaign. What do I do about death? Is it okay to kill characters? If PCs die, what do I do with the player afterwards?

MD: Death happens. You're adventurers going into dangerous places - you expect it to be a tea party? Play the game fairly, and don't try to force your will on it too much. That means that if PCs die, they die, but also don't be "out to get them." If a PC dies, no big deal. They may have resurrection magic available, but even if not or if it won't work for some reason, they've got other characters. Some stories come to an end, and that's what makes them awesome. Worst case scenario, roll up another level 1 character.

LS: Death can happen, but it should be rare. It's also important to keep everyone at roughly the same power level so they can continue together. Either find a way to make them "not-dead" off of character, or have very readily available resurrection that can bring them back. If those don't work for some reason, you should let the player make a new character, generally at a level beneath the rest of the party or the lowest party member.

SG: Death should be extremely rare. The story is about these characters, and killing off a PC results in all of their story threads being suddenly snipped. Not cool. Death should really only be at appropriately dramatic moments, and probably with the cooperation of the player involved. If a PC does die, let them make another character, probably at the same level as the rest of the group.

I'm starting a new campaign. What prep should I do? How much of the story should I write?

MD: You definitely need the first level or so of your dungeon. You don't need to have the whole thing mapped out, but likely areas they could get to on lower levels could be at least sketched in. As far as story - what are you talking about? Stories are what happen in the dungeon, as a result of play. They're not something you plan or create as a GM.

LS: It's important to have the broad story arc figured out, with a number of sub-arcs. You don't need to have the whole thing figured out in advance, unless you're using a pre-written adventure, but at least sketch out what the players will be doing - the major bad guy they'll have to defeat, probably his lieutenants, a few of the high points of the campaign or twists, etc. Then make sure you've got your first session planned out - you might want to think about planning out the second session, too, as staying at least one step ahead will help find problems before you encounter them.

SG: Don't plan the story, that's for sure! What you want to understand before going in is the overall threat or threats available, and the major NPCs. For the major NPCs, make sure you know what their goals and agendas are, though realize up front that they'll probably need to change their agenda in response to player actions. Then, figure out a great inciting incident - something that demands attention from the players, but ideally, not a specific respone - and go! Your job as a GM is really to provide problems, but not solutions.


I've also played in this variety, but I'd consider system to be at least as important as this. Two D&D campaigns, one of which is the Grey Marches style megadungeon and one of which is the Dragonlance style story based play honestly seem pretty similar to me. I might just be unusually sensitive to the system modeling side.

It could be. And there's a few ways I could easily see that.

For one, I hate mustard, and so anything with mustard in it just Tastes Like Mustard to me, and I don't really notice anything else.

For another, if I'm really craving meat, then it might not matter much if it's a steak or if it's a hamburger so long as I get tasty, tasty beef.

In my case, most of the things that I look for in RPGs revolve around the decisions players make, so the game style (which impacts what decisions are available) is of high importance. If someone was just interested in mechanical optimization, or in tactical combat, or something like that, then yeah, there'd be less difference between various versions of the system. (Which leads to another bad assumption, actually - the assumption that all people are looking to get the same things out of RPGs).

One last thing: Since you're aware of many different games, you're far more likely to pick a game that meets what you're trying to do, rather than use a single game (except FUDGE, because that does everything, amirite?) for everything.


I understand. And continue to disagree with the stated premise.

At the most, the two are two equal halves of the same experience. But the "fallacy" as stated assumes that the Game as the Gameplay Experience and the Game as the Table Experience. are equal terms. They are not.



The First Circle is only interactions pertaining directly to the game itself and its rules/mechanics. For chess, that is things like the moves the pieces make, the players declaring said moves, etc. In Blackjack, saying things like "Hit me" and placing bets would be First Circle activity. So, the first circle involves players interacting directly with the game itself, and with eachother strictly within game context.

The second circle is interactions between players not directly tied to the game, but still between players of the game. Puns, side comments, conversation about what to do next, etc are all Second Circle activities.

The problem here is that there's a gap between the first and second circles, as you've defined them (this is Big Model crap, right?).

Specifically there are a number of things that are specifically game experience impacting that are mostly player to player interactions. "What's the next scene, who determines it, and based on what?" is generally not covered by rules, but is absolutely impactful on gameplay. For instance, based on my three games above, the answer might look like:

MD: The players, based on where they go.
LS: The GM, based on their prep.
SG: The players, based on their actions, unless the GM has a reason to intrude/force a different scene

This is not specifically rules, so is not really a "Circle 1" thing. It also drastically impacts the 'actual' game, so it's *clearly* not in the realm of fart-joke-to-monty-python-quote-to-pun ratios.

These are the interactions that the proposed fallacy actually is talking about - interactions that are *not* covered implicitly or explicitly by the rules, but which can have a significant impact on the game experience, and whether player needs are being met.



Thinking about all the cases where this error occurs (help threads, long arguments with Darth Ultron, helping create stereotypes), I think recognizing and overcoming the error is wise but that using a name would neither add clarity nor increase success rate. Thoughts?

There may be something to this.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-24, 11:02 AM
Specifically there are a number of things that are specifically game experience impacting that are mostly player to player interactions. "What's the next scene, who determines it, and based on what?" is generally not covered by rules, but is absolutely impactful on gameplay. For instance, based on my three games above, the answer might look like:

MD: The players, based on where they go.
LS: The GM, based on their prep.
SG: The players, based on their actions, unless the GM has a reason to intrude/force a different scene

This is not specifically rules, so is not really a "Circle 1" thing. It also drastically impacts the 'actual' game, so it's *clearly* not in the realm of fart-joke-to-monty-python-quote-to-pun ratios.

These are the interactions that the proposed fallacy actually is talking about - interactions that are *not* covered implicitly or explicitly by the rules, but which can have a significant impact on the game experience, and whether player needs are being met.



There may be something to this.

Those are covered in the First Circle. My most recent explanation was sadly lacking. Interactions between players via the medium of the game are first circle interactions. So if I tell you "The goblin is attacking you." Then that's first circle even though it is me talking to you.

Nifft
2016-04-24, 01:46 PM
Hmmmmmmmmmmm

That's a tad more than non-trivial, don't you think?
And that's the problem.

If the group has a greater impact on how the game plays than the game does, then why do we have multiple rpgs? There would be no need for that if you could just assemble the right group to make any RPG do anything.

That does not follow.

The game you experience is a result of the interaction between the rules you pick, and the group you sit with.

There are multiple sets of rules because sometimes it's easier to change the rules than to change the group, and it's quite possible that (rules A • group X) = good experience, while (rules B • group X) = bad experience.

Knaight
2016-04-24, 02:43 PM
It could be. And there's a few ways I could easily see that.

For one, I hate mustard, and so anything with mustard in it just Tastes Like Mustard to me, and I don't really notice anything else.

For another, if I'm really craving meat, then it might not matter much if it's a steak or if it's a hamburger so long as I get tasty, tasty beef.

In my case, most of the things that I look for in RPGs revolve around the decisions players make, so the game style (which impacts what decisions are available) is of high importance. If someone was just interested in mechanical optimization, or in tactical combat, or something like that, then yeah, there'd be less difference between various versions of the system. (Which leads to another bad assumption, actually - the assumption that all people are looking to get the same things out of RPGs).

One last thing: Since you're aware of many different games, you're far more likely to pick a game that meets what you're trying to do, rather than use a single game (except FUDGE, because that does everything, amirite?) for everything.

The similarity between D&D editions in particular for me is probably a Tastes Like Mustard scenario, but I'd argue that even looking at a decisions made perspective, system matters. Players make very different decisions in different games, even in the narrow band of highly traditionalist games. Outside of said narrow band, it just gets bigger. Meanwhile, if you're interested in tactical combat or something, then you're going to feel a very big difference between any two systems where one of them uses a grid and one doesn't, or where one uses double blind decision making and one doesn't, or anything else like that. There is the matter of how much attention is paid to the system at all, regardless of what aspects specifically you're looking at; groups that pay next to no attention to the system and use it entirely as an excuse to get together with the same group of people and socialize routinely are likely to see less effect.

There's also the matter of the extent to which people effect social groups they're in. There are people which can be taken in and out without it changing much, and they're likely to be more sensitive to group changes than people who dramatically affect whatever group they're in. This is one of those things where it's vastly easier to see how other people affect it than you do (on account of not seeing how a group behaves in your absence for obvious reasons), so it could be another effect.

kyoryu
2016-04-24, 09:37 PM
The similarity between D&D editions in particular for me is probably a Tastes Like Mustard scenario

I kind of suspected as much.


but I'd argue that even looking at a decisions made perspective, system matters.

I do not argue this at all. I think it's perfectly obvious that system matters. Game experience = system + table. And not just the ratio of monty python quotes to puns, but how the rules are applied, especially in areas (like game setup) that they don't always exist.

Again, to be clear, this is a smaller issue in games that are more explicit about such things. If AD&D had really laid out the "Lake Geneva Style" of play, then it seems likely to me that there'd be less confusion about these things in the D&D world, for instance.

Another point where you'd personally likely to see less of this impact is that you're aware of a greater variety of games, and as such, if you want to play a scenario about people coming to a town to find out what "demon" has been corrupting the townsfolk, you'll play DitV. It's written to do that, it has mechanics to do that, and it excels at that. However, that's also not true of all people.

So if you say "I'm playing D&D", I can probably narrow down what you're doing to one of the areas that D&D has super-focused on - railroad stories for modern games, or megadungeons for earlier editions. I know you're not playing a DitV-type game, because then you'd just use DitV. However, that's not true for all people.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-24, 10:09 PM
That does not follow.

The game you experience is a result of the interaction between the rules you pick, and the group you sit with.

There are multiple sets of rules because sometimes it's easier to change the rules than to change the group, and it's quite possible that (rules A • group X) = good experience, while (rules B • group X) = bad experience.

I never argued anything to the contrary of this. I merely stated that discounting the Game itself as an important factor in the overall experience leads to weird things that make no sense. What I said was rather explicitly meant to be a thing that follows from awful reasoning. (Ie, if only Group matters, then there wouldn't be multiple games. If only Game matters, there wouldn't be dysfunctional groups, etc. Neither are true or make sense, because neither matches reality, indicating that both viewpoints are inherently flawed.

So basically? You're agreeing with me.

kyoryu
2016-04-24, 11:45 PM
I never argued anything to the contrary of this. I merely stated that discounting the Game itself as an important factor in the overall experience leads to weird things that make no sense.

I don't think anyone is trying to claim that the system has no impact.

Nifft
2016-04-25, 03:13 AM
So basically? You're agreeing with me.

Not really.

What I'm doing is answering a question which you asked:


If the group has a greater impact on how the game plays than the game does, then why do we have multiple rpgs?

Also, I'm highlighting an implicit assumption of yours about one's ability to easily change groups, and pointing out that in my experience that assumption is often incorrect.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-25, 05:54 AM
Also, I'm highlighting an implicit assumption of yours about one's ability to easily change groups, and pointing out that in my experience that assumption is often incorrect.

I didn't say anyone had explicitly made that point, though we approached it (Some claimed the Group had majority influence, and since we all know fallacies get abused as often as used correctly, this is not a particularly egregious peek into the potential future.)

I never supposed changing groups was easy, first of all. I merely stated that changing groups would be the way to get something new, not playing a new game. (Within the hypothetical, non-realistic situation presented.)

If system makes no/minimal difference to game experience, then in this hypothetical situation there is no reason to switch systems apart from cost. So cheapest option wins. This is pretty basic economics. If people have two equivalent options as far as quality, but one is cheaper, they will choose the cheaper option. Extend this outwards and you end up with One System to Rule Them All. (Not our current situation.)

So you were disagreeing with a thing I didn't say.

Jay R
2016-04-25, 07:54 AM
Roleplaying is our sticky one, because it straddles the line between the 1st and 2nd circles and doesn't have a clear place. (By roleplaying I mean talking in character) but I would say it has to do with the First Circle more than the second.

But once you've admitted that role-playing straddles the line between them, the separation into two becomes suspect for role-playing games. Because how the roles are played has a large effect (though not the only effect) on the game.

Let me explain what I mean by the gaming group mattering more than the game system.

In my gaming group at university, most players were scouring the rules looking for holes in them and ways to abuse them. We were each looking out for our own characters, and while we'd help each other when needed, our number one goal was to improve our own character, so we'd fight over each new item. As DMs, we would also usually design games as pretty much a town and a nearby dungeon. That was true in D&D, Traveller, Chivalry and Sorcery, and Monsters! Monsters!, and playing those games all had pretty much the same feel.

We could play our selfish and rules-mongering way in any system. The systems were different, and we enjoyed playing them, but our approach was the same to all of them, and the sessions felt similar.

The group I bumped into for a short while in the 1980s were much more casual, didn't read the rules much except for character creation, and assumed that the DM would determine where they went. This was true in AD&D, Champions, and Pendragon.

My current group is focused on helping each other, and forming a solid party. In character creation, we are trying to cover all bases, including deep backstories and how (or if) we knew each other in advance. If we didn't, we play out the process of learning to trust and respect each other. Treasure division is based on who would get the most out of the item, and we routinely aid each other in battle. The DMs tend to provide fleshed out worlds, and the players want their characters to be rooted in them. This is true in original D&D, AD&D 1e and 2e, D&D 3.5e, Fantasy Hero, Champions, and Flashing Swords.

While the moves we make are rooted in the game system, the actual feel of the game is pretty much the same when we change systems. In a 2e game, two sixth level wizards coordinated attacks on a pirate ship, in which one cast a Gust of Wind to roll the ship, and the other cast a Lightning Bolt into the now-exposed lower hull. In a Champions game, the psionic heroine moved the brick by telekinesis so he could catch up to a faster villain. In 3.5e, my Ranger trips enemies to make it easier for others to kill them.

While the mechanics are very different, these were all maneuvers planned in advance, and the feel of the game is similar, and very different from the casual approach of my 80s group, or the self-centered approach of my 70s group.

Lorsa
2016-04-25, 09:52 AM
Those are covered in the First Circle. My most recent explanation was sadly lacking. Interactions between players via the medium of the game are first circle interactions. So if I tell you "The goblin is attacking you." Then that's first circle even though it is me talking to you.

I was going to point this out to you, however you did it just fine yourself. The First Circle of RPGs is not solely defined by the rule book used (or rule system). There are more factors that enter into it, which tend to be group specific. There are two fallacies, one is making the FC all about the rule system (stated by the OP), the other is making the FC all about the group specific (stated by no one).

Since you seem to agree that the FC of RPGs includes both system and "other group specific stuff", I wonder why you are really arguing, when you could be spending your time doing something much more fun, like trying to convince Darth Ultron that railroading is not inherent in D&D.

Knaight
2016-04-25, 10:20 AM
Since you seem to agree that the FC of RPGs includes both system and "other group specific stuff", I wonder why you are really arguing, when you could be spending your time doing something much more fun, like trying to convince Darth Ultron that railroading is not inherent in D&D.

I could see people changing their minds on this one. The Sisyphean task you're presenting, not so much.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-25, 01:12 PM
But once you've admitted that role-playing straddles the line between them, the separation into two becomes suspect for role-playing games. Because how the roles are played has a large effect (though not the only effect) on the game.

Let me explain what I mean by the gaming group mattering more than the game system.

In my gaming group at university, most players were scouring the rules looking for holes in them and ways to abuse them. We were each looking out for our own characters, and while we'd help each other when needed, our number one goal was to improve our own character, so we'd fight over each new item. As DMs, we would also usually design games as pretty much a town and a nearby dungeon. That was true in D&D, Traveller, Chivalry and Sorcery, and Monsters! Monsters!, and playing those games all had pretty much the same feel.

We could play our selfish and rules-mongering way in any system. The systems were different, and we enjoyed playing them, but our approach was the same to all of them, and the sessions felt similar.

The group I bumped into for a short while in the 1980s were much more casual, didn't read the rules much except for character creation, and assumed that the DM would determine where they went. This was true in AD&D, Champions, and Pendragon.

My current group is focused on helping each other, and forming a solid party. In character creation, we are trying to cover all bases, including deep backstories and how (or if) we knew each other in advance. If we didn't, we play out the process of learning to trust and respect each other. Treasure division is based on who would get the most out of the item, and we routinely aid each other in battle. The DMs tend to provide fleshed out worlds, and the players want their characters to be rooted in them. This is true in original D&D, AD&D 1e and 2e, D&D 3.5e, Fantasy Hero, Champions, and Flashing Swords.

While the moves we make are rooted in the game system, the actual feel of the game is pretty much the same when we change systems. In a 2e game, two sixth level wizards coordinated attacks on a pirate ship, in which one cast a Gust of Wind to roll the ship, and the other cast a Lightning Bolt into the now-exposed lower hull. In a Champions game, the psionic heroine moved the brick by telekinesis so he could catch up to a faster villain. In 3.5e, my Ranger trips enemies to make it easier for others to kill them.

While the mechanics are very different, these were all maneuvers planned in advance, and the feel of the game is similar, and very different from the casual approach of my 80s group, or the self-centered approach of my 70s group.

You misunderstand. My Roleplaying I do not meant Roleplaying games. I mean the specific act of talking in character.

RPGs are games, and by being games are divided into the Circles I've described. The circles are a convenient way to describe the different kinds of interaction going on while a game is occurring. Roleplaying (speaking in-character to the bartender NPC who speaks back in character to you) is the only ingredient that might be seen as being both First and Second circle activity, but most of the time it is First Circle (interaction between players via the medium of the game).

{{scrubbed}}

Cluedrew
2016-04-25, 05:44 PM
The Sisyphean task you're presenting, not so much.Sorry, but what does "Sisyphean" mean?

Keltest
2016-04-25, 06:23 PM
Sorry, but what does "Sisyphean" mean?

In Greek Myth, Sisyphus is a person (king?) in the underworld who pushes a boulder up a hill all day, only for it to roll back down come nightfall. He is tasked to get it all the way to the top, but he has to restart before he can get there. The reasons vary, but it is typically the result of his insufferable cleverness and pride in it. Something pointless and time consuming is generally called Sisyphean.

illyahr
2016-04-25, 10:14 PM
I think the core of what the OP was trying to state, the core of his/her proposed fallacy, is that some people do not acknowledge a difference between Game Experience and Player Experience, by assuming there is none (playing the same game so having the same experience) or by assuming one leads directly to the other (playing this game so we should all be playing in a similar manner).

I have to admit, I've had campaigns fall apart because half the group were playing differently than the other half and arguments kept coming up about who was bringing the game down. This is not a fun position for a GM to be in. :smallfrown:

Lorsa
2016-04-26, 02:45 AM
{{scrubbed}}

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-26, 04:59 AM
{{scrubbed}}

Lorsa
2016-04-26, 07:57 AM
{{scrubbed}}

neonchameleon
2016-04-26, 09:13 AM
Hmm... bringing things back on topic-ish.

How much the game influences the players depends a lot on the GM. To elaborate:

In one of my groups there are three GMs. Let's call them R, J, and Me.

J is the most experienced game among us. When she runs a game of D&D it's going to be intense, fairly tactical, with set pieces to think your way round. When she runs Feng Shui it's the same way.

R is going to create a rolling pile of chaos no matter what the system. His Feng Shui campaigns are awesome - his D&D is a rolling pile of entertaining chaos that feels more tied down than Feng Shui but in the same style.

Me, I follow the game and the rules. My 4e campaigns are tactical combat, freeform and fairly light and chaotic and evocative the rest of the time (and I'm an excellent tactician). My Feng Shui 2 is a rolling pile of chaos because that's what the system does for me (my FS1 isn't because I use the system too much and it very much shows its age as a 90s game). My oD&D is hardcore tactical/logistical because that's what the system encourages. And my Firefly is a complete carnival of chaos, again because that's what comes out of the game system.

And this happens all at the same table.

goto124
2016-04-26, 10:13 AM
{{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}}

Best or worst?

Vinyadan
2016-04-26, 11:00 AM
{{scrub the post, scrub the quote}}

"Not seeing the pigeon on the chessboard".

ngilop
2016-04-26, 01:57 PM
I did my own fallacy a while ago dubbed the Ngilop Fallacy TM The abridged version is
just because a person says, 'play what gives you the most enjoyment' they do not mean that anybody who says 'thats not optimized at all' cannot roleplay, they just mean literally, play however and whatever gives you the most enjoyable experience out of D&D, or any other RPG ever in existence. After all, you play D&D and other RPGs to have fun and camaraderie with friends and family. In the end being told 'your a chump for playing a *insert class/role/build/archetype etc etc here* you should play *insert obviously bordering on broken combination here* is not fun, rather insulting and not very conducive to the gaming experience no community as a whole.

OldTrees1
2016-04-26, 04:28 PM
Maybe we need the Darth Ultron fallacy? When you assume the best in people, even when presented with evidence of the contrary?

Hanlon's Razor tends to be more useful than not so I would not call it a fallacy (especially not due to the insignificant fraction of the cases that is Darth Ultron).

Jay R
2016-04-26, 04:44 PM
A fallacy, rule, or law is not named by the person who it's named after, or even by the first person to quote it. It's named by the people who cite it so often that they need a handle for it.

Cluedrew
2016-04-26, 05:30 PM
On the main topic: (As I would really like to avoid gossip.)

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." -Someone who works with statistics. Forget who.

So basically what I am saying is that while table experience and game experience may be useful terms in some (or many) contexts if it doesn't work in a particular context we shouldn't try to apply it anyways.

In this case I don't think that isolating them is really accurate, how you use the rules can be effected by the other people at the table and how you interact with other people can be effected by the rules of the game. So ignoring either one will lead to some inaccuracies and in turn both should be considered important.

Nifft
2016-04-29, 09:34 PM
I'm highlighting an implicit assumption of yours (...)


I didn't say anyone had explicitly made that point (...)

You're having some difficulty here.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-29, 09:40 PM
You're having some difficulty here.

Because apparently

An Assumption that can lead to a point being made = The Point being Made.

Yup. It is I with the difficulty.

Nifft
2016-04-30, 08:21 AM
Yup. It is I with the difficulty.

If you still think we're saying the same thing, which you apparently did think for a while, then you are having some difficulty.

Yep.

Glad we're agreed on that, at least.

OldTrees1
2016-04-30, 08:37 AM
Because apparently

An Assumption that can lead to a point being made = The Point being Made.

Yup. It is I with the difficulty.


If you still think we're saying the same thing, which you apparently did think for a while, then you are having some difficulty.

Yep.

Glad we're agreed on that, at least.

I am confused. When reading your posts it seems both of you are vehemently arguing that both the game and the group matter. Is this not so?


(your avatars both being angry kobolds has hilariously added to my confusion :smallbiggrin:)

Nifft
2016-04-30, 09:05 AM
I am confused. When reading your posts it seems both of you are vehemently arguing that both the game and the group matter. Is this not so? My point is that the game is the result of an interaction between system and group, and that it's far easier to change system than to change group, so having a variety of systems is still very valuable even if group turns out to be the more important component.

As a metaphor:
- Your driving experience is a result of the interaction between your tires and your transmission.
- Your transmission accounts for 60% of the interaction.
- Your tires are much easier to change.

So, it's true that your group matters... but it's not necessarily useful to know that, if you are unable to change groups easily.

It's also true that the rules system matters, and that may be easier to change.


(your avatars both being angry kobolds has hilariously added to my confusion :smallbiggrin:) A few months ago I did some visual edits to my Kobold specifically to make this sort of interaction more entertaining (and less confusing).

OldTrees1
2016-04-30, 09:16 AM
My point is that the game is the result of an interaction between system and group, and that it's far easier to change system than to change group, so having a variety of systems is still very valuable even if group turns out to be the more important component.

A few months ago I did some visual edits to my Kobold specifically to make this sort of interaction more entertaining (and less confusing).

So mentally replace where I said "game" with the word "system" so that it translates accurately.
1) You find that both the system and the group matter.

2) I suggest ignoring the word "more". If the word "more" is vital to your position then you two will never agree. If it is not vital to your position then it merely artificially lengthens the time you are talking past each other.

The visual edits did make it more entertaining (and less confusing)

Nifft
2016-04-30, 09:30 AM
So mentally replace where I said "game" with the word "system" so that it translates accurately.
1) You find that both the system and the group matter.

2) I suggest ignoring the word "more". If the word "more" is vital to your position then you two will never agree. If it is not vital to your position then it merely artificially lengthens the time you are talking past each other.

The visual edits did make it more entertaining (and less confusing)

It's nice of you to try to build consensus, but it feels to me like you're attempting to do so at the expense of accuracy.

I'd prefer to keep my position clean & clear, since it's not a position that I've seen expressed previously, and it may have some interesting (and useful) implications for game system choice.

OldTrees1
2016-04-30, 09:43 AM
It's nice of you to try to build consensus, but it feels to me like you're attempting to do so at the expense of accuracy.

I'd prefer to keep my position clean & clear, since it's not a position that I've seen expressed previously, and it may have some interesting (and useful) implications for game system choice.

Fair enough

I just thought I would mention it since the distinction that would follow from your position seems tangential or even irrelevant with respect to the proposed fallacy. Since the important distinction you are talking about seems tangential or even irrelevant to the original topic, I suspected that you and ImNotTrevor might have been talking in reference to different topics.

But fair enough.

kyoryu
2016-04-30, 10:05 AM
My point is that the game is the result of an interaction between system and group, and that it's far easier to change system than to change group, so having a variety of systems is still very valuable even if group turns out to be the more important component.

I think you're inferring something that was never really implied.

Nobody is suggesting "hey, change your group if you don't like how things are played" (well, to the extent that no gaming is better than bad gaming, yeah, I'll suggest that). The point is simply that when talking about "playing D&D", it's not super useful to project your own experiences of what that means and assume that they're universal.

Nifft
2016-04-30, 10:44 AM
If the group has a greater impact on how the game plays than the game does, then why do we have multiple rpgs? There would be no need for that if you could just assemble the right group to make any RPG do anything.


I think you're inferring something that was never really implied.

Nobody is suggesting "hey, change your group if you don't like how things are played" (well, to the extent that no gaming is better than bad gaming, yeah, I'll suggest that). The point is simply that when talking about "playing D&D", it's not super useful to project your own experiences of what that means and assume that they're universal.

It seems like you've missed some context form a previous page.

My point is in response to such a claim.

That's specifically why I say multiple RPGs exist -- because different groups interact with RPG systems differently, therefore changing your RPG system can change the game-experience in a non-linear way.

Changing your group is one way to change your game-experience.

Changing the RPG system while holding the group constant is an easier way to change the game-experience of the whole group.

I've seen M:tG explore how rules interact with a few different player personality archetypes, but I've seen no exploration of how group dynamics interact with RPG systems.

So perhaps I'm onto something novel, here -- or perhaps not, in which case I'm super interested in hearing about the research that's been done.

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-30, 11:30 AM
It seems like you've missed some context form a previous page.

My point is in response to such a claim.

That's specifically why I say multiple RPGs exist -- because different groups interact with RPG systems differently, therefore changing your RPG system can change the game-experience in a non-linear way.

Changing your group is one way to change your game-experience.

Changing the RPG system while holding the group constant is an easier way to change the game-experience of the whole group.

I've seen M:tG explore how rules interact with a few different player personality archetypes, but I've seen no exploration of how group dynamics interact with RPG systems.

So perhaps I'm onto something novel, here -- or perhaps not, in which case I'm super interested in hearing about the research that's been done.

I've been arguing the entire time that both system and group matter, and that minimizing the system's impact is bad (as several posters attempted to do).

So we agree on that. (Oops)

My claim there was meant as rhe obvious "Saying the game matters 0 is stupid because it creates a world that does not exist in reality." A Hypothetical that egregiously and obviously doesn't match reaity (which I've repeatedly stated to not match reality) is not an argument that said hypothetical is true or accurate.

Go ahead and reread those until it becomes more obvious, but I was pointing out an absurdity, not making an argument about how the world actually works.

Like I said, you're just angrily agreeing with me while insisting that you don't. Which is weird.

Nifft
2016-04-30, 11:38 AM
I've been arguing the entire time that both system and group matter, and that minimizing the system's impact is bad (as several posters attempted to do).

So we agree on that. (Oops)

My claim there was meant as rhe obvious "Saying the game matters 0 is stupid because it creates a world that does not exist in reality." A Hypothetical that egregiously and obviously doesn't match reaity (which I've repeatedly stated to not match reality) is not an argument that said hypothetical is true or accurate.

Go ahead and reread those until it becomes more obvious, but I was pointing out an absurdity, not making an argument about how the world actually works.

Like I said, you're just angrily agreeing with me while insisting that you don't. Which is weird.

It's because you're saying something more simplistic than what I'm saying.

The details are actually important sometimes.

This is one of those times.

OldTrees1
2016-04-30, 11:46 AM
It's because you're saying something more simplistic than what I'm saying.

The details are actually important sometimes.

This is one of those times.

I suggest you name and detail the circumstance you are talking about so that we can understand better. In which case is Person A's presumption (that every group playing System X is playing as Person A's group plays it) one such that these details you are stressing are important and in what manner does that importance affect whether the presumption is reasonable or fallacious in a matter that recognizing the group has an impact does not?

ImNotTrevor
2016-04-30, 12:24 PM
It's because you're saying something more simplistic than what I'm saying.

The details are actually important sometimes.

This is one of those times.

That's rather presumptive. How exactly is it more simplistic, given my delving into actual Game/Play Theory?
All that stuff with the Circles isn't' something I pulled out of my butt. Go read the book Rules of Play, which is a text designed to create a mutual language of discussion for those who study games and play so that similar phenomena can be communicated about clearly, as is said in the forward. People who talk about human play and game structures actually use this kind of language. (Crazy, I know)

The way that the group at large interacts with the system is going to be a lot more complex than how a system interacts with a player. (One is a sentient entity with a long history of experiences, many potential personalities and desires, and many different potential reactions to any given stimulus. The other is a set of rules that does...more or less what the rules say.) Most MtG analysis that I've seen as far as player personalities and their systems tends to be about general gaming personalities and their effects on what colors/deck builds said people gravitate towards. That's pretty easy.

In class-based systems, you could see how different personality types wander towards specific classes. (are more aggressive people more likely to play Barbarians?)
In point-buy, I guess you'd have to see what kinds of features they pick most often?
In systems like FATE, you'll have a lot harder time finding neat little boxes to use.

Science and measurement REALLY like neat little boxes. That's why statisticians use multiple-choice surveys instead of open-response questions. The first is a LOT easier to draw measurable meaning from than the latter. You can put that into plots and do math with it. Sentences are rather hard to make math out of without several additional steps.

So you're going to run into a lot of those types of problems when trying to measure/analyze how a group affects a play experience. You would basically just need to do a lot of well-documented and recorded observations, but pretty much nobody would say that the group has 0 impact at all. (I certainly wouldn't, I've seen the impact of a few players turning Shadowrun into something more like a dating sim because they were way more into the setting than the system, so some major changes to the system and how it functions became necessary, leading to the use of an entirely different system.)

So yeah. Not really sure what you're trying to get at.

kyoryu
2016-04-30, 12:29 PM
That's specifically why I say multiple RPGs exist -- because different groups interact with RPG systems differently, therefore changing your RPG system can change the game-experience in a non-linear way.

Changing your group is one way to change your game-experience.

Changing the RPG system while holding the group constant is an easier way to change the game-experience of the whole group.

Again, nobody is arguing what is "easier", though what is easier is going to change based on the individuals circumstances. If I live in an RPG-rich area, and my current group hates everything but Pathfinder, it might well be easier for me to change groups than change systems!

The point of the proposed fallacy is simply that changing the group can change the gameplay experience, often to a significant degree. This doesn't appear to be something you're arguing against.

Changing the system will obviously change the gameplay experience as well. That's probably less so with more traditional/open systems which leave wider areas open for GM interpretation, but it's true in all cases.

Nifft
2016-04-30, 01:05 PM
Again, nobody is arguing what is "easier", though what is easier is going to change based on the individuals circumstances. If I live in an RPG-rich area, and my current group hates everything but Pathfinder, it might well be easier for me to change groups than change systems! Part of my argument is the fact that they are not equivalent, so... okay?

That's nice for you, I guess?


The point of the proposed fallacy is simply that changing the group can change the gameplay experience, often to a significant degree. This doesn't appear to be something you're arguing against. That's correct. I'm not arguing against the fallacy at all. In fact, I suggested some names for it up on the first page, which tends to indicate a form of support -- which in turn implies that I'm not against it.

I'm arguing against something said later in the thread, and I'm making an apparently novel point about the interaction of group and system.


Changing the system will obviously change the gameplay experience as well. That's probably less so with more traditional/open systems which leave wider areas open for GM interpretation, but it's true in all cases. What's not obvious is the effect that changing RPG system will have on your group.

Nobody says: "My group has two Timmy players, one Spike, and a Malkavian. The DM enjoys 50% worldbuilding and 30% politics. What game should we play?"

As far as I can tell, this is uncharted territory.

kyoryu
2016-04-30, 01:20 PM
Part of my argument is the fact that they are not equivalent, so... okay?

Sure, changing groups has different effects than changing systems (and also depending on the specific groups and systems.


That's nice for you, I guess?

That seems unnecessarily snarky.


That's correct. I'm not arguing against the fallacy at all. In fact, I suggested some names for it up on the first page, which tends to indicate a form of support -- which in turn implies that I'm not against it.

Cool. Sorry if I misunderstood.


What's not obvious is the effect that changing RPG system will have on your group.

Nobody says: "My group has two Timmy players, one Spike, and a Malkavian. The DM enjoys 50% worldbuilding and 30% politics. What game should we play?"

As far as I can tell, this is uncharted territory.

I've actually started trying to map out which 'needs' (as I call them) various people have. Timmy/Spike are particular player profiles from a particular game, and aren't necessarily useful outside of that context (much like the Heart/Diamond/Spade/Club profiles are less useful outside of the MUDII context).

So, not totally uncharted, and I totally understand and get where you're going. I think it's actually grounds for a far more useful "theory" of game design than has been seen so far. Because, you know, starting with the desires of the actual people involved seems strangely useful.

OldTrees1
2016-04-30, 01:27 PM
What's not obvious is the effect that changing RPG system will have on your group.

Nobody says: "My group has two Timmy players, one Spike, and a Malkavian. The DM enjoys 50% worldbuilding and 30% politics. What game should we play?"

As far as I can tell, this is uncharted territory.

I suggest revisiting 3 sources:
1) The "What RPG is best suited to this campaign/playstyle" threads in this specific subforum.
2) The 8 kinds of fun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA&ab_channel=ExtraCredits)
3) The GNS theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory) (I dislike this one personally, but you should judge for yourself)

As a personal example, there is a specific playstyle for which I would switch from 3.5 to Paranoia despite needing to learn the new system. Likewise one of the Star Wars RPGs has a specific resolution system for which I would switch to it for yet another specific playstyle.

Nifft
2016-04-30, 01:33 PM
That seems unnecessarily snarky. You seemed to be using boasting as a counter-argument, that you had so many choices that optimizing one kind of choice was irrelevant to you, and I wanted to indicate that your situation might not be generally applicable, while still noting that your situation was enviable.


Cool. Sorry if I misunderstood. All's well that ends well.


I've actually started trying to map out which 'needs' (as I call them) various people have. Timmy/Spike are particular player profiles from a particular game, and aren't necessarily useful outside of that context (much like the Heart/Diamond/Spade/Club profiles are less useful outside of the MUDII context).

So, not totally uncharted, and I totally understand and get where you're going. I think it's actually grounds for a far more useful "theory" of game design than has been seen so far. Because, you know, starting with the desires of the actual people involved seems strangely useful. Indeed it does.


I suggest revisiting 3 sources:
1) The "What RPG is best suited to this campaign/playstyle" threads in this specific subforum.
2) The 8 kinds of fun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA&ab_channel=ExtraCredits)
3) The GNS theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory) (I dislike this one personally, but you should judge for yourself)

As a personal example, there is a specific playstyle for which I would switch from 3.5 to Paranoia despite needing to learn the new system. Likewise one of the Star Wars RPGs has a specific resolution system for which I would switch to it for yet another specific playstyle. Good stuff.

kyoryu
2016-04-30, 04:55 PM
I suggest revisiting 3 sources:
1) The "What RPG is best suited to this campaign/playstyle" threads in this specific subforum.
2) The 8 kinds of fun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA&ab_channel=ExtraCredits)
3) The GNS theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_theory) (I dislike this one personally, but you should judge for yourself)

As a personal example, there is a specific playstyle for which I would switch from 3.5 to Paranoia despite needing to learn the new system. Likewise one of the Star Wars RPGs has a specific resolution system for which I would switch to it for yet another specific playstyle.

GNS and Big Model are both pretty barfy to me. They commit most of the things I consider to be "sins" when trying to come up with a general theory.

I'm semi skeptical of "n types of..." things, but I'll check it out. In general, I find that things are a bit more fluid than that, and what's interesting is what people get out of games, which can be things as utterly trivial as "something to do while hanging out with my buds and drinking beers."


You seemed to be using boasting as a counter-argument, that you had so many choices that optimizing one kind of choice was irrelevant to you, and I wanted to indicate that your situation might not be generally applicable, while still noting that your situation was enviable.

Sorry about that. My intent was to highlight an example (not even me, really) where changing groups might be easier than changing systems, to point out that "it's easier to change systems than groups" is not necessarily true.

In all honesty, I have had many, many conversations with people whose groups are unwilling to play anything except <System X>, for almost any particular value of <System X>. So having a group that is willing to try different things is also somewhat enviable.

OldTrees1
2016-04-30, 05:59 PM
I'm semi skeptical of "n types of..." things, but I'll check it out. In general, I find that things are a bit more fluid than that, and what's interesting is what people get out of games, which can be things as utterly trivial as "something to do while hanging out with my buds and drinking beers."

Let me know your thoughts after checking it out. I believe you will find it suitably fluid while it focuses on what people get out of the games. However I would like to hear your thoughts.