The Firebird

Whitehack comes to mind; the mechanics allow one of the classes to take abilities from defeated enemies. But there is no specific dungeon for it that implements the loop

Love this point. It brought to mind, of all things, a Fukuyama essay on aging. With apologies to the OP--I don't mean to criticize!--but to emphasize that the dynamic works both ways. There is much to learn from new entrants, who question established ideas and provide a necessary shakeup.

I'm a fan of this call to arms. Dungeon crawling has, in a certain sense, been solved. Not that new iterations of mechanics won't be fun or more accessible, but I think we know how to do it.

But there are a lot of scenarios we don't know how to do.

Really cool story. It's hard not to think of Girard's Violence and the Sacred. We know so little about these people but what we do feels poignant and sad, an acute sense of loss.

Thanks for the recommendations! Hole in the Sky has been on my list. I hadn't heard of the Kansas one.

Come to think of it--what funnels really work as one shots? I've had luck as campaign starters, but for a public game playing level 1s (or 2s, or higher) has always been a better experience. Maybe you need fewer options to learn a new system.

Adventure Review: Sailors on the Starless Sea Adventure Review: Sailors on the Starless Sea Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG. Level 0. My experience: Run 2x for public games. A solid mod...

I've run Sailors on the Starless Sea a few times for con games but it's never quite worked. I think the combination of the funnel (hard for new players) and the decently hard puzzle solving makes it too challenging for a new audience.

thefirebirdslair.blogspot.com/2025/11/adve...

#ttrpg #osr

Hey, thanks for the conversation!

"The true Grasshopper sees that work is not self-justifying, and that his way of life is the final justification of any work whatever."

That doesn't imply work is not justified. A game can be both self-justifying *and* contribute to survival, which enables more self-justifying actions in the future

I don't think that's right. In Ch 1 the Grasshopper notes that he is special--that he exaggerates the point to show the logic of it, even if in practice its time has not yet come. Until Utopia is achieved there is value to activities which make self-justifying ends possible.

I could be wrong, by imo that analysis of Suits is incorrect. The fact that you have some other purpose, be it pedagogy, civic engagement, fitness, team-building, etc. which informs your choice of game has no impact on whether the activity is a game.

I took Suits' project as placing games into "telic leisure", leisure activities pursued for their own sake. Music or art are clearly here but games are questioned more.

Or do you mean something else by "play for purpose", like games as pedagogy?

I agree, I was just positing that as a case where the problem is most severe.

Another way to put it: if the rules *as rules* are the most efficient way of doing something, it is not a game. If the game *as a game* is, and for that reason you adopt the game's rules, it remains a game.

Compare: learning math with these rules vs learning math using a game with these rules

In the moral or tactical case, we *never* accept rules because they make some activity possible. They lead directly to the ends, rather than indirectly.

(I'm not sure if the train of thought in these posts is right, so let me know if you see errors)

In a sadder case, playing a specific game may be the most efficient way for an addict to find joy. But that says nothing about whether this activity is a game. Suits gives this example with George the golfer.

So we are still applying the rules because they make the game possible. Our goal of teaching math is separate from and prior to whatever the prelusory goal of the game is. And the rules remain an inefficient way to achieve this prelusory goal.

Going back to the classroom example, I see it as two steps:

1) We want to use the most efficient means to teach math, and it turns out this is a game (because games are fun)

2) We accept the rules of the game because they make the act of game playing possible

Right, the rules of the game have to be accepted to make game playing possible, rather than because of a moral reason (don't kill) or tactical reasons (don't use nuclear weapons, in Ivan and Abdul) or any other purpose.

Does saying "toxicity is playing the game badly" work as a response here? You can make poor moves in chess because you are in a bad mental state ("tilted"), but are still playing. Yelling at your friends in a collaborative game seems similar.

Or more precisely, you may select the prelusory goal of being atop a mountain for a variety of reasons. But as long as you climb it rather than taking a helicopter, it is the game of mountain climbing.

It has been some time, but I think the prelusory goal is broad--"any achievable state of affairs could be made the goal of a game". And in this sense, they are independent.

You may choose mountain climbing for the view or for the exercise, but both are games.

The Grasshopper is not in an academic style--its more whimsical, with short chapters and a narrative. It's a much easier read

Great example with the wererats. It sounds like a fun group of players

In other cases the players have no ground to stand on. "A greatsword does 2d6" is more playable because it matches player expectations.

A fun article. I want to push on this--playability and realism are aligned to the extent that realism gives the players unwritten rules. "Gravity" is implemented for realism; without it, gaming is harder because the players don't know how the world works.

I started the ludonarrative dissidents podcast at a friend's recommendation. It turns out the games they cover are all outside my wheelhouse. Lots of narrative heavy stuff.

Lancer and Mothership, though, make the jump.

That holds in games like 5e. But in OSR I've had better luck with high and low level characters in the same party. Is it just because of the variance? Or is that player skill also matters, so having a bad sheet isn't as big an impediment?

I think the latter.

On variance in games--is it better for a RPG to be high variance (poker; skill matters but the winner is uncertain) or low variance (chess; only skill?).

It's different than in competitive games, but there is a agon-esque component...if someone's build is outright much stronger, no fun.

Makes sense. It's essentially a Galton board, with the added wrinkle of repeats