Warning!  Long wordy post to follow!

While reading several recent threads here on the board (the 4e one particularly sparking my thought process), I came to a conclusion about RPGs and their construction that might be worth exploring.  I'll present these thoughts as a series of hypotheses, just to organize the responses to them.  My basic thought process is as follows (and I'll expand on each afterward):

1)  As a game genre that evolved from war-gaming (and is similar to some kinds of board and skirmish games), RPGs and board/war games can be conceptualized as lying on the opposite ends of a spectrum.

2)  The spectrum defining this separation can be loosely described as reflecting the amount to which a player's choice is restricted only by the "reality" of the setting, and not rules or mechanics of the system.

3)  As a game's rules become more proscriptive (or prescriptive), the game seems more like a board game and less like an RPG.

4)  While different people have different tolerances of such, the more a player and/or setting is constrained by the mechanics of a game, the more likely a player is to feel the game is less an RPG and more a board game.

In short, the defining factor that separates earlier versions of D&D from later (WotC) versions of D&D is how much the mechanics of the game shape the setting, as opposed to the other way around.

Now that the basic summary is complete, I'll expand each point in an attempt to clarify my argument. 

First, concerning the conceptual construct of the spectrum, I will admit this is a point of weakness of this argument.  There is no reason that you need to categorize RPGs on a spectrum with board games.  More than one difference exists between the genres (the extent to which the player's "pieces" are developed, the existence or lack of an "endgame", the persistence of the game events over subsequent sessions, etc.), so I am not asserting that the difference between board games and RPGs can be boiled down to just one element.  I do think a strong case can be made, however, that player agency is an important part of the difference between the two types, and that RPGs generally offer more freedom of choice.

This "freedom of choice" is based around the kinds of actions the player can make to change the game state.  Most board games have a rigidly assigned number of "moves" (i.e. choices) that a player can take on his turn.  The decision-space of a board game tends to be rigidly defined by rules, with the standard assumption being that a player's move that is not explicitly allowed by the rules is not permitted.  In the case of most board games, this can be easily seen in the rules for moving pieces or tokens: the player is normally constrained to move in ways explicitly delineated by the game rules.  RPGs, on the other hand (especially as originally practiced with OD&D), are constructed around player choices limited only by the verisimilitude of the actions with regard to the fictional setting.  A player declares what his character(s) does, and then the action is adjudicated (by which I mean the outcome is determined based on something other than a simple invariant result as proscribed in the rules).  This wider freedom is one of the reasons for a "judge" (DM). 

So far, I don't think any of these hypotheses are particularly outlandish.  At this point, however, if we examine the intellectual consequences of the preceding hypotheses, we come to some more potentially... controversial... conclusions.  For example, if we were to examine the platonic "perfect" board game and RPG, we might suggest that the platonic board game has no player "moves" that require adjudication.  Chess might be a good example of this principle.  There are no "legal" moves that require any judgment or adjudication, and no moves are possible in the game except those explicitly permitted by the rules.  Conversely, if we assume the "perfect" RPG occupies the other end of the spectrum, then the platonic RPG has no "moves" that do not require adjudication.  Put more simply, the platonic RPG has the result of every player action dependent on the circumstances within the game's setting at that moment, which will then lead to a result that cannot be systematized (because it is dependent on the unique circumstances of that moment).

Now, such a game is platonic because it is probably unachievable, and probably not desirable to most gamers, anyway.  It approaches a game of "let's pretend" more than what we might recognize as a game of D&D.  The mental workload of that game (where the DM and players must have the most minute information about the circumstances in order to effectively predict possible outcomes of actions) would be enormous.  But the philosophy of that platonic RPG can be useful.

Look at the original task resolution of OD&D.  The DM looked at the situation in the game world and decided the probabilities for success or failure of the proposed actions.  He then used some random method (usually some combination of dice... though it should be noted that some early games used paper slips drawn from a container) to resolve the task.  Over time, some tasks became so common ("What are my chances of bending the bars over the window?") that the mechanics were standardized to reduce the mental workload.  But the overall pattern is consistent.

So what can we gather from this?  Most importantly, the mechanics of the platonic RPG are a reaction TO the circumstances, and not a determiner OF the circumstances faced by the players.  When the mechanics of an RPG begins to limit player reactions to a situation, the game is starting to slide down the spectrum towards board game.  This is a fundamental difference between the earliest iterations of D&D and the WotC versions of the game (in scale, if nothing else).  For example, the concept of "feats" in 3e tends to limit what is possible in the game outside of what the circumstances in the game world might otherwise allow.  There is a difference between a DM deciding that the chances of swinging a sword and striking two enemies with the same swing (ignoring the fact that attacks technically do not equal "swings" even in the earliest editions), and the game's rules declaring that a player cannot even attempt such a thing without having "purchased" the proper feat (which is much more of mechanics constraining player options).  Or, as another example, the difference between a thief's backstab ability and 5e's sneak attack.  The circumstances under which backstab can be performed is a nebulous "being unseen by the target," which is left to adjudication of the circumstances at that moment.  The sneak attack has a much more defined set of triggers, most of which require little to no adjudication.  Now, some players will be more tolerant of adjudication than others (some will hate the lack of certainty of when backstab is possible, and others will feel straight-jacketed by the rules for sneak attack).  But, in general, the later editions have moved towards amore mechanical construction of player choices.

As a consequence, I think this fundamental difference of approach is why many players of original editions reacted so strongly to the WotC editions of D&D (especially 4e).  The WotC editions are much farther down the decision-spectrum than the original editions.  Look, for example, at the relationship of the classes to the mechanics.  Ignoring any arguments about how effectively they did so, the classes from the early editions were designed to reflect the archetype within the setting.  Whereas, the mere definition of a "striker" (like used for the rogue in 4e) suggests that the mechanics are taking primacy over the circumstances of the setting.  Most gamers from earlier editions may have recognized roles as useful shorthands of areas of strength, but would consider the actual "role" a character filled as something dependent on the circumstances of the moment (why couldn't that same rogue be a "controller" by leading off or decoying part of the enemy forces? Obviously he could, even in 4e, but the presentation makes that seem counter to the structure of the game).

So, to sum up, one of the unique strengths of an RPG is the breadth of choices open to the players.  These choices seem to feel less constricting when they are confined only by the circumstances of the setting, and not the mechanics of the game.  Such constraints due to mechanics are necessary, but the extent determines the "feel" of the game.  Modern iterations of D&D seem to have moved towards mechanics taking precedence over adjudication.  And, as the mechanics of a system take precedence, the game begins to feel more "board-game-like," and less like an RPG.  I think this is a reasonable intellectual lens to view the difference between earlier versions of D&D (and the OSR) and later WotC versions (and Pathfinder, etc.).  Additionally, it can also help define an "OSR" feel to a game: if the game tends to create or assign mechanics based on the events that occur, rather than predetermining player decision-spaces based on mechanics, it will likely feel like earlier editions of D&D.  This conclusion has some bearing on unified mechanics, too, but that's for a different overly long post...

I get what you're saying. A few points occur to me.

I think the "minute information" problem can be self-correcting if you let it. If no one at the table has even considered some bit of minute information, then how would anyone notice if it's neglected in adjudication? And some bit of minutia is considered by someone at the table, couldn't it then be considered in adjudication? I think the platonic ideal RPG may actually be attainable by this standard.


In Trivial Pursuit, often a response a player gives is not going to be an exact match for the answer on the card. Common sense adjudication in most cases happens almost automatically. In rarer cases, it will require more conscious consideration. But in all cases, the basis for adjudication are how the words are used out in the world and not as explicitly defined by the game. I'd consider Trivial Pursuit to be a pure board game, and yet it's almost impossible to play without adjudication. Maybe it's not adjudication that characterizes the differences in the games you're looking at.

One thing I think is noteworthy is that adjudication in Trivial Pursuit does not affect strategic decision making. You still want to answer the questions as best as possible, regardless of how loosely or stringently the answer will ultimately be adjudicated. And so perhaps because it has no bearing on decision-making, adjudication doesn't move the needle at all down the spectrum.

By contrast, I played in an RPGA 3E adventure where there was a coup de grace situation in which I thought the most realistic weapon my character had to do the deed would be his dagger, but teh rulez had me instead jabbing the creature with a crossbow bolt since it had a higher base damage. Whether or not I anticipated there being reasonable adjudication would have likely changed my choice of weapon.

I would also note that if it weren't an RPGA sanctioned game, if I had anticipated the DM might use some common sense, there would have been no guarantee that he would have made the dagger the better choice. He might have just deferred to the base damage. I would have still gone with the dagger, playing the odds. But what are exactly the odds? Indeterminate.

And perhaps that is precisely what is disconcerting to some players. They can handle well-defined probabilities. Not knowing whether attacking an opponent will hit or not is fine. Not knowing whether or not the coup de grace will go strictly by the rules or altered according to common sense is a problem for these players.

I'd be curious if such players would have difficulty or discomfort playing a game like Apples to Apples where the criteria for the best card to play is not set by the rules and entirely adjudicated by a human player.

If there's a correlation, then the defining characteristic of the spectrum you're looking at has less to do with board game vs RPG and is more like Risk vs Uncertainty as set forth by economist Frank Knight. And to that, I'll note that most real world decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty rather than risk. So to the extent I want to bring a real world richness into my fictional RPG world, I find adjudication very important. So there would be a strong correlation to your thesis.

I think you are missing a complete axis here.

Let's call it the challenge vs. theater axis.
Getting out alive with as much gold as possible vs. the improvised creation of the narrative of a cheesy fantasy novel.
You can do both and everything in-between on both sides of the rules scale.

We know that Gary Gygax was firmly on the challenge part of the axis throughout his career as a game designer, but moved around on the rules scale.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 11, 2021, 03:01:48 AMBy contrast, I played in an RPGA 3E adventure where there was a coup de grace situation in which I thought the most realistic weapon my character had to do the deed would be his dagger, but teh rulez had me instead jabbing the creature with a crossbow bolt since it had a higher base damage. Whether or not I anticipated there being reasonable adjudication would have likely changed my choice of weapon.

I would also note that if it weren't an RPGA sanctioned game, if I had anticipated the DM might use some common sense, there would have been no guarantee that he would have made the dagger the better choice. He might have just deferred to the base damage. I would have still gone with the dagger, playing the odds. But what are exactly the odds? Indeterminate.

Depending on the edition a coup de grace move does not roll damage or in some cases even a to-hit. Its an instakill with the weapon. In 5e it was a rule but during playtest it was removed.

Two points that might be relevant:

1. It is far more difficult to teach adjudication than to teach rules.  Arguably, WotC is so constrained by this reality that in their rules and sage advice they have largely given up--which tends to make any product they put out tend more towards rules throughout its lifetime.  This issue is perhaps reinforced by the internet and the coordinated existence of "char op" types on it.  5E is a conscious backing away from this trend at launch but has grown more constrained as time passes (if you listen to WotC, their horrible "sage" rulings, and their crowd).  No doubt there is also an element of lack of trust of GM's involved.  Whether this is due to failure to teach the GMs or GMs own problems or a player base that doesn't allow GMs time to grow is another question.

2. As our society grows more modern, it becomes increasing difficult for a budding GM to apply life experiences to adjudicate reasonably and easily in a fantastical ancient or medieval game or even a romanticized faux medieval fantasy with Wild West inspirations.  It isn't only the mindset, which is a considerable hurdle.  It is also the difficulty of imaging how people live and what works.  When Gygax was first writing this stuff, he could assume a fairly common list of source materials to which his readers would be at least reasonably exposed.  He could also reasonably expect that most of them at least knew someone who lived an agrarian life, had older relatives that perhaps had lived without running water, electricity, etc.  And in some cases knew someone still living in those conditions, where things like candles, wells, and such are so common that knowledge of how they work is practically automatic for all involved.  Such knowledge can fall considerably short of everything that needs to be imagined in a fantasy setting but it is a huge step closer than what your average 20-year old GM today would have.

Quote from: igor on July 11, 2021, 05:10:47 AM
I think you are missing a complete axis here.

Let's call it the challenge vs. theater axis.
Getting out alive with as much gold as possible vs. the improvised creation of the narrative of a cheesy fantasy novel.
You can do both and everything in-between on both sides of the rules scale.

We know that Gary Gygax was firmly on the challenge part of the axis throughout his career as a game designer, but moved around on the rules scale.

Oh, I admitted that other axes might exist right at the very beginning.  But I don't think that the other axis you propose necessarily helps to describe the difference between the early editions and the WotC ones, which was my primary purpose (sorry if that was unclear).  I'm also really looking at my own gaming and trying to capture that OSR feel, which I think does exist.  5e (which my group plays a lot) nods towards OSR with its "rulings over rules" mantra, but still falls short.  I think that's because it still shapes its settings (which I would include things like how character classes interact with the world) as functions of the rules, rather than the other way around...

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 11, 2021, 07:49:33 AM
Two points that might be relevant:

1. It is far more difficult to teach adjudication than to teach rules.  Arguably, WotC is so constrained by this reality that in their rules and sage advice they have largely given up--which tends to make any product they put out tend more towards rules throughout its lifetime.  This issue is perhaps reinforced by the internet and the coordinated existence of "char op" types on it.  5E is a conscious backing away from this trend at launch but has grown more constrained as time passes (if you listen to WotC, their horrible "sage" rulings, and their crowd).  No doubt there is also an element of lack of trust of GM's involved.  Whether this is due to failure to teach the GMs or GMs own problems or a player base that doesn't allow GMs time to grow is another question.

2. As our society grows more modern, it becomes increasing difficult for a budding GM to apply life experiences to adjudicate reasonably and easily in a fantastical ancient or medieval game or even a romanticized faux medieval fantasy with Wild West inspirations.  It isn't only the mindset, which is a considerable hurdle.  It is also the difficulty of imaging how people live and what works.  When Gygax was first writing this stuff, he could assume a fairly common list of source materials to which his readers would be at least reasonably exposed.  He could also reasonably expect that most of them at least knew someone who lived an agrarian life, had older relatives that perhaps had lived without running water, electricity, etc.  And in some cases knew someone still living in those conditions, where things like candles, wells, and such are so common that knowledge of how they work is practically automatic for all involved.  Such knowledge can fall considerably short of everything that needs to be imagined in a fantasy setting but it is a huge step closer than what your average 20-year old GM today would have.

OK, both of these are very good points.  Number one makes perfect sense, especially when you think that Gary, et al., were wargamers first, and therefore were more comfortable with adjudication.  It also is a little distressing.  I've always played around with the idea of writing my own game and system.  If you are right, part of the sales success of the WotC editions might be a product of their straightforwardness.  The ability of a non-experienced DM to just start, without the long learning curve, might translate into a more "accessible" game.  So creating a game with an Old School feel might be doomed at the start to appeal only to a steadily shrinking minority of gamers who have experience in the old way of playing.  It's also somewhat sad to think that the vast majority of younger players will have never experienced a "true" RPG experience (at least as we would term it), and don't even know they haven't...

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 11, 2021, 03:01:48 AM
I get what you're saying. A few points occur to me.

I think the "minute information" problem can be self-correcting if you let it. If no one at the table has even considered some bit of minute information, then how would anyone notice if it's neglected in adjudication? And some bit of minutia is considered by someone at the table, couldn't it then be considered in adjudication? I think the platonic ideal RPG may actually be attainable by this standard.


In Trivial Pursuit, often a response a player gives is not going to be an exact match for the answer on the card. Common sense adjudication in most cases happens almost automatically. In rarer cases, it will require more conscious consideration. But in all cases, the basis for adjudication are how the words are used out in the world and not as explicitly defined by the game. I'd consider Trivial Pursuit to be a pure board game, and yet it's almost impossible to play without adjudication. Maybe it's not adjudication that characterizes the differences in the games you're looking at.

One thing I think is noteworthy is that adjudication in Trivial Pursuit does not affect strategic decision making. You still want to answer the questions as best as possible, regardless of how loosely or stringently the answer will ultimately be adjudicated. And so perhaps because it has no bearing on decision-making, adjudication doesn't move the needle at all down the spectrum.

By contrast, I played in an RPGA 3E adventure where there was a coup de grace situation in which I thought the most realistic weapon my character had to do the deed would be his dagger, but teh rulez had me instead jabbing the creature with a crossbow bolt since it had a higher base damage. Whether or not I anticipated there being reasonable adjudication would have likely changed my choice of weapon.

I would also note that if it weren't an RPGA sanctioned game, if I had anticipated the DM might use some common sense, there would have been no guarantee that he would have made the dagger the better choice. He might have just deferred to the base damage. I would have still gone with the dagger, playing the odds. But what are exactly the odds? Indeterminate.

And perhaps that is precisely what is disconcerting to some players. They can handle well-defined probabilities. Not knowing whether attacking an opponent will hit or not is fine. Not knowing whether or not the coup de grace will go strictly by the rules or altered according to common sense is a problem for these players.

I'd be curious if such players would have difficulty or discomfort playing a game like Apples to Apples where the criteria for the best card to play is not set by the rules and entirely adjudicated by a human player.

If there's a correlation, then the defining characteristic of the spectrum you're looking at has less to do with board game vs RPG and is more like Risk vs Uncertainty as set forth by economist Frank Knight. And to that, I'll note that most real world decisions are made under conditions of uncertainty rather than risk. So to the extent I want to bring a real world richness into my fictional RPG world, I find adjudication very important. So there would be a strong correlation to your thesis.

Hmmm.  I might respond that, just as 4e slid way down the axis towards board game, we could consider Trivial pursuit to be slightly down the axis in the other direction from chess (though still firmly on the board game side).  But that's a minor thing, and not relevant to your overall point.  I need to think about the risk vs uncertainty a bit before responding, as it is an idea worth mulling over...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 11, 2021, 08:08:50 AM
OK, both of these are very good points.  Number one makes perfect sense, especially when you think that Gary, et al., were wargamers first, and therefore were more comfortable with adjudication.  It also is a little distressing.  I've always played around with the idea of writing my own game and system.  If you are right, part of the sales success of the WotC editions might be a product of their straightforwardness.  The ability of a non-experienced DM to just start, without the long learning curve, might translate into a more "accessible" game.  So creating a game with an Old School feel might be doomed at the start to appeal only to a steadily shrinking minority of gamers who have experience in the old way of playing.  It's also somewhat sad to think that the vast majority of younger players will have never experienced a "true" RPG experience (at least as we would term it), and don't even know they haven't...

While it is something to consider, I don't think it is insurmountable.  It is simply that some things the older gamers take for granted need to be explained in simple terms, with lots of examples.  Also, they need to be explained in terms of adjudication and "good enough" for the game.  That is, show the mental process that a GM goes through to adjudicate based on some basic ideas of how things work. 

I think of it in terms of Gygax explaining "hit points" and "armor as AC". His explanation wasn't perfect.  Some people didn't get it.  Of all the people that got it, only some were willing to accept it even as a game construct.  Rather, some people got it and some of them accepted it as good enough to get on with the game.  Well, trying to communicate old school play to a young gamer has more things like that than what Gygax had to deal with, but it is still a list of things that can be explained, at least to some people.

In fact, this ties into the whole argument of whether or not a new RPG should have a "How to roleplay" section or not.  I think it does, but that the best contents of that section are different than what earlier games needed.  How to play pretend elf is better understood by your average new gamer today than it was then if only because there are more reference points than "like Legolas".  How the game/setting/characters interact at the table with adjudication is less understood--because it is more foreign.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on July 11, 2021, 07:49:33 AM

2. As our society grows more modern, it becomes increasing difficult for a budding GM to apply life experiences to adjudicate reasonably and easily in a fantastical ancient or medieval game or even a romanticized faux medieval fantasy with Wild West inspirations.  It isn't only the mindset, which is a considerable hurdle.  It is also the difficulty of imaging how people live and what works.  When Gygax was first writing this stuff, he could assume a fairly common list of source materials to which his readers would be at least reasonably exposed.  He could also reasonably expect that most of them at least knew someone who lived an agrarian life, had older relatives that perhaps had lived without running water, electricity, etc.  And in some cases knew someone still living in those conditions, where things like candles, wells, and such are so common that knowledge of how they work is practically automatic for all involved.  Such knowledge can fall considerably short of everything that needs to be imagined in a fantasy setting but it is a huge step closer than what your average 20-year old GM today would have.

Absolutely true, although there is a strong case that the early designers underestimated the amount of stuff they needed to explain as well.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 10, 2021, 10:58:44 PM
So, to sum up, one of the unique strengths of an RPG is the breadth of choices open to the players.  These choices seem to feel less constricting when they are confined only by the circumstances of the setting, and not the mechanics of the game.  Such constraints due to mechanics are necessary, but the extent determines the "feel" of the game.  Modern iterations of D&D seem to have moved towards mechanics taking precedence over adjudication.  And, as the mechanics of a system take precedence, the game begins to feel more "board-game-like," and less like an RPG.  I think this is a reasonable intellectual lens to view the difference between earlier versions of D&D (and the OSR) and later WotC versions (and Pathfinder, etc.).  Additionally, it can also help define an "OSR" feel to a game: if the game tends to create or assign mechanics based on the events that occur, rather than predetermining player decision-spaces based on mechanics, it will likely feel like earlier editions of D&D.  This conclusion has some bearing on unified mechanics, too, but that's for a different overly long post...

Yup, you make a good point - this is indeed one of the unique strengths of an RPG.

Now, I am not entirely sure there is a simple pattern of old school being more, say, diegetic, and modern editions less so. 4e is certainly the epitome of boardgame D&D, but 3e (you mention Pathfinder)... not sure. 5e is somewhere between the two.

But I mostly agree and I think I have some good examples.

First, I think this might be an illustration of what you're saying:



This is my kid playing around with mazes. The explanation came immediately and naturally: "I think the penguin needs to make a small jump here... and here... and a big jump here".

Adults do not make these logical "jumps" because we know in most games the non-diegetic elements take precedence.

Full post here:
http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/03/rpg-and-design-iii-crunch-is-fluff.html

Now, a couple of additional posts about differences between 3e and 4e. I'll sum them up below.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/02/tripping-oozes-in-d-3e-versus-4e-versus.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/03/does-d-require-miniatures-3e-versus-4e.html

First is what I call "tripping oozes":

3.5e FAQ
Things that don't need limbs for locomotion can't be tripped. You can't trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won't find this in the rules, but then it really doesn't need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM's common sense.

4e FAQ
Can a gelatinous cube be knocked prone? In situations like this, DMs are encouraged to change the flavor of what is happening without changing the actual rules governing the situation. For example, the ooze could be so disoriented by the blow that it suffers the same disadvantages as if it had been knocked prone until it spends a move action to stand up effectively shaking off the condition.

Second is "the shape of fireballs":

This is a 3e fireball:



Yeah, okay, these aren't prefect circles... But they are clearly trying to fit the concept of a circle in a square grid. Many people disliked that; one could even say they were quite literally trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. But this made sense for many players - myself included. The fiction indicated a circle - the grid was just an imperfect  tool to portray that.

This is a 4e fireball:



4e does things in a different way: the grid comes first. Moving across a square field diagonally takes the same time as crossing it from one side to another. A fireball has the shape of a square... or maybe even a CUBE.

EDIT: let me link to another post.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/03/players-dont-need-rules-old-school.html

This distinction comes from RPG pre-history; it is the main difference between Kriegsspiel and "Free Kriegsspiel" (if you ever heard about the FKR or "Free Kriegsspiel Revolution", this is where it comes from, BTW), like you can see in the Wikipedia article (emphasis mine):

    Lieutenant Wilhelm Jacob Meckel published a treatise in 1873[d] and another in 1875[e] in which he expressed four complaints about the overcomplicated rules of Kriegsspiel: 1) the rules constrain the umpire, preventing him from applying his expertise; 2) the rules are too rigid to realistically model all possible outcomes in a battle, because the real world is complex and ever-changing; 3) the computations for casualties slow down the game and have a minor impact on a player's decisions anyway; 4) few officers are willing to make the effort to learn the rules.[13] The fourth issue was the most serious, as the Prussian military struggled to meet the growing demand for umpires.[14] Meckel proposed dispensing with some of the rules and giving the umpire more discretion to arbitrate events as he saw fit. The only things he kept were the dice and the losses tables for assessing casualties.[15]
    In 1876, General Julius von Verdy du Vernois proposed dispensing with all the rules and tools completely and allowing the umpire to arbitrate the game entirely as he saw fit.[f] This form of Kriegsspiel came to be known as free Kriegsspiel (counterpart to Reisswitz's rigid Kriegsspiel) and was well-received by the officer corps because it was easier to learn and allowed umpires to apply their own expertise.[16][17]

As you can see, in "Free Kriegsspiel" the umpire (GM) is supposed to know more about the rules than the players. In fact, he can completely disregard the rules in favor of "ad hoc" rulings that better suit the the complexities of the real world (or the even greater complexities of fictional world, I'd guess).

Quote from: Eric Diaz on July 11, 2021, 03:48:34 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 10, 2021, 10:58:44 PM
So, to sum up, one of the unique strengths of an RPG is the breadth of choices open to the players.  These choices seem to feel less constricting when they are confined only by the circumstances of the setting, and not the mechanics of the game.  Such constraints due to mechanics are necessary, but the extent determines the "feel" of the game.  Modern iterations of D&D seem to have moved towards mechanics taking precedence over adjudication.  And, as the mechanics of a system take precedence, the game begins to feel more "board-game-like," and less like an RPG.  I think this is a reasonable intellectual lens to view the difference between earlier versions of D&D (and the OSR) and later WotC versions (and Pathfinder, etc.).  Additionally, it can also help define an "OSR" feel to a game: if the game tends to create or assign mechanics based on the events that occur, rather than predetermining player decision-spaces based on mechanics, it will likely feel like earlier editions of D&D.  This conclusion has some bearing on unified mechanics, too, but that's for a different overly long post...

Yup, you make a good point - this is indeed one of the unique strengths of an RPG.

Now, I am not entirely sure there is a simple pattern of old school being more, say, diegetic, and modern editions less so. 4e is certainly the epitome of boardgame D&D, but 3e (you mention Pathfinder)... not sure. 5e is somewhere between the two.

But I mostly agree and I think I have some good examples.

First, I think this might be an illustration of what you're saying:



This is my kid playing around with mazes. The explanation came immediately and naturally: "I think the penguin needs to make a small jump here... and here... and a big jump here".

Adults do not make these logical "jumps" because we know in most games the non-diegetic elements take precedence.

Full post here:
http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2020/03/rpg-and-design-iii-crunch-is-fluff.html

Now, a couple of additional posts about differences between 3e and 4e. I'll sum them up below.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/02/tripping-oozes-in-d-3e-versus-4e-versus.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2017/03/does-d-require-miniatures-3e-versus-4e.html

First is what I call "tripping oozes":

3.5e FAQ
Things that don't need limbs for locomotion can't be tripped. You can't trip a snake, a beholder, or a gelatinous cube. You won't find this in the rules, but then it really doesn't need to be in there—the rules can leave some things to the DM's common sense.

4e FAQ
Can a gelatinous cube be knocked prone? In situations like this, DMs are encouraged to change the flavor of what is happening without changing the actual rules governing the situation. For example, the ooze could be so disoriented by the blow that it suffers the same disadvantages as if it had been knocked prone until it spends a move action to stand up effectively shaking off the condition.

Second is "the shape of fireballs":

This is a 3e fireball:



Yeah, okay, these aren't prefect circles... But they are clearly trying to fit the concept of a circle in a square grid. Many people disliked that; one could even say they were quite literally trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. But this made sense for many players - myself included. The fiction indicated a circle - the grid was just an imperfect  tool to portray that.

This is a 4e fireball:



4e does things in a different way: the grid comes first. Moving across a square field diagonally takes the same time as crossing it from one side to another. A fireball has the shape of a square... or maybe even a CUBE.

EDIT: let me link to another post.

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2021/03/players-dont-need-rules-old-school.html

This distinction comes from RPG pre-history; it is the main difference between Kriegsspiel and "Free Kriegsspiel" (if you ever heard about the FKR or "Free Kriegsspiel Revolution", this is where it comes from, BTW), like you can see in the Wikipedia article (emphasis mine):

    Lieutenant Wilhelm Jacob Meckel published a treatise in 1873[d] and another in 1875[e] in which he expressed four complaints about the overcomplicated rules of Kriegsspiel: 1) the rules constrain the umpire, preventing him from applying his expertise; 2) the rules are too rigid to realistically model all possible outcomes in a battle, because the real world is complex and ever-changing; 3) the computations for casualties slow down the game and have a minor impact on a player's decisions anyway; 4) few officers are willing to make the effort to learn the rules.[13] The fourth issue was the most serious, as the Prussian military struggled to meet the growing demand for umpires.[14] Meckel proposed dispensing with some of the rules and giving the umpire more discretion to arbitrate events as he saw fit. The only things he kept were the dice and the losses tables for assessing casualties.[15]
    In 1876, General Julius von Verdy du Vernois proposed dispensing with all the rules and tools completely and allowing the umpire to arbitrate the game entirely as he saw fit.[f] This form of Kriegsspiel came to be known as free Kriegsspiel (counterpart to Reisswitz's rigid Kriegsspiel) and was well-received by the officer corps because it was easier to learn and allowed umpires to apply their own expertise.[16][17]

As you can see, in "Free Kriegsspiel" the umpire (GM) is supposed to know more about the rules than the players. In fact, he can completely disregard the rules in favor of "ad hoc" rulings that better suit the the complexities of the real world (or the even greater complexities of fictional world, I'd guess).

Good stuff!  I had heard of FKS, and consider it a forebearer of RPGs.  Your examples are very much what I was thinking of, though we differ a bit on our evaluations of 3e.  I still think 3e had moved a little too far down the spectrum, but that's a matter of taste...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 11, 2021, 04:57:19 PM
Good stuff!  I had heard of FKS, and consider it a forebearer of RPGs.  Your examples are very much what I was thinking of, though we differ a bit on our evaluations of 3e.  I still think 3e had moved a little too far down the spectrum, but that's a matter of taste...

Thanks! Yeah, agree it's a matter of taste. And I don't entirely disagree about 3e. I think I'm just pointing to the fact that it isn't really a steady decline from OD&D to 5e. There are at least two big moments in which the difference becomes more accentuated (the first between the "everything goes" OD&D and "play it our way" AD&D, the second between 3e and 4e) and one reversion (from 4e to 5e).

Now, I never looked into a comparison between AD&D and 3e in this regard. It's not an easy comparison to make because although I think AD&D might have a stricter "follow the rules" tone, 3e has A LOT MORE rules to follow...

Quote from: Eric Diaz on July 11, 2021, 07:56:56 PM
Now, I never looked into a comparison between AD&D and 3e in this regard. It's not an easy comparison to make because although I think AD&D might have a stricter "follow the rules" tone, 3e has A LOT MORE rules to follow...

  Which AD&D are you looking at to make the comparison to 3E? AD&D 1E has the stricter tone, while AD&D 2E is much more about 'pick and choose' and 'build your own game'. 3E actually moves closer to 1E in this regard, and 3.5 drifts ever farther in that direction.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on July 11, 2021, 08:06:56 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on July 11, 2021, 07:56:56 PM
Now, I never looked into a comparison between AD&D and 3e in this regard. It's not an easy comparison to make because although I think AD&D might have a stricter "follow the rules" tone, 3e has A LOT MORE rules to follow...

  Which AD&D are you looking at to make the comparison to 3E? AD&D 1E has the stricter tone, while AD&D 2E is much more about 'pick and choose' and 'build your own game'. 3E actually moves closer to 1E in this regard, and 3.5 drifts ever farther in that direction.

Yeah, I was referring to 1e. I don't quite remember how 2e treats that TBH.