When running MoSH games I have every person develop a succinct background for their character to allow them to explore who their character is, what motivates them, and what they tend to do or respond in certain situations. This information is for the player and they determine when to share if ever. When playing the game, I tell the players to not tell me what their characters wants to do, but tell the table what their characters are doing. When playing the game, you are the character. This gets into the theater of the mind and allows the characters to play off one another organically. I like it as a Warden because it keeps me on my toes and gives the entire table a space to create the story together. MoSH modules tend to support this play by producing frameworks that I can use as a scaffold to build an engaging world that can be as fluid as you want or need it to be.
There was a moment in my second Thundarr the Barbarian game (using TSR Marvel Superheroes) where they had found the wizard Gemini's "hoard." They asked me what was there, and I asked them what they were looking for, what they wanted to find. It varied from player to player, but some of their heads kind of exploded. We haven't gone back to that campaign since. https://randallhayes.substack.com/p/never-you-mind-lizard-man
This is great stuff. I see the same issues of people not understanding themselves or play (types of) when in comments and videos there is an idea of “improv” without ever having studied or practiced what “improv” is. There is a nonsensical assumption that people just “make stuff up” without any structures, without understanding that the training of “improv” (many forms and styles) are all based in structural constraints to train the players to internalize said constraints when and if it pleases them.
The sticking point I run into with this is the repeated appeals to the 'physics of the world' when the game world is (necessarily) imaginary - it has no 'physics'. Someone has to decide what this 'physics' says. That someone seems to be assumed to be the GM, here. That's fine - but it's an assumption and it's just one way of roleplaying. The game world - the game itself, in fact - is formed around a conversation happening at the table. It ultimately has to be the course of that conversation that decides upon the authority over the world's defined 'physics' and how that is formulated. At that point, it seems to me that the difference between 'physics' and game rules is more or less moot.
I found myself agreeing with everything you said in your post, but there's still something unsatisfying about it nagging at me.
Consider the counterexample of the commonly leveled criticism of D&D 4e not having a particularly fleshed out default setting. I played 4e quite a bit back in the day and this was very unsatisfying to both play and try to run a game in. It essentially asks every DM to homebrew the setting. In your framework, I suppose this generally puts it at Level 4, Self-Actualized Play, since there's no "intended domain". But I think we would agree that this is not an ideal to strive for.
My thinking is that having a very fleshed out gameplay world allows for more of the Level 3 and Level 4 gameplay than a fleshed out set of rules. Those who are inclined to do extensive worldbuilding on their own for fun are well-equipped for this. For those without the time or inclination to worldbuild, if the game's publications don't provide much of this, it becomes really difficult to self-actualize.
Another counterexample is fall damage. Take it as a corollary to the example of swimming. If you go by rulings on intuition of how the world works, the result can be pretty unfun If the game world is like the real world, if you fall out of a second story window laden with weapons and gear, you could break a bone, or die outright. That would be an unsatisfying way to go. As the game world lets the PCs regularly do more and more heroic deeds, the intuition for something like fall damage starts to become unintuitive.
For the rules on relationships, I'm with you. Most people want to play games where relationships work for characters work in a similar way as relationships in real life. So diagetic intuition works quite well.
Bit of a ramble but I hope it continues to explore some of the dark corners of your idea.
"If you go by rulings on intuition of how the world works, the result can be pretty unfun If the game world is like the real world, if you fall out of a second story window laden with weapons and gear, you could break a bone, or die outright." I think that's actually quite subjective! Games like Call of Cthulhu regularly embrace this kind of more realistic grit and it can work very well if your table is interested in it. I for one quite like running games where even jumping a 2m gap with a sharp drop is a significant risk. This is a tonal judgement more than anything.
"It essentially asks every DM to homebrew the setting." As you point out, this will be for some and not for others! I'd argue though that 4e definitely has an intended domain, combat and action montages, and it expects the GM to build a world that facilitates that. 4e is definitely interested in Level 2 play, since it encodes as much of what players 'should' be doing as possible. It's primarily a tactical combat game, where the world details actually matter a lot less since so much of what characters can and 'should' be doing is mechanically structured.
When running MoSH games I have every person develop a succinct background for their character to allow them to explore who their character is, what motivates them, and what they tend to do or respond in certain situations. This information is for the player and they determine when to share if ever. When playing the game, I tell the players to not tell me what their characters wants to do, but tell the table what their characters are doing. When playing the game, you are the character. This gets into the theater of the mind and allows the characters to play off one another organically. I like it as a Warden because it keeps me on my toes and gives the entire table a space to create the story together. MoSH modules tend to support this play by producing frameworks that I can use as a scaffold to build an engaging world that can be as fluid as you want or need it to be.
There was a moment in my second Thundarr the Barbarian game (using TSR Marvel Superheroes) where they had found the wizard Gemini's "hoard." They asked me what was there, and I asked them what they were looking for, what they wanted to find. It varied from player to player, but some of their heads kind of exploded. We haven't gone back to that campaign since. https://randallhayes.substack.com/p/never-you-mind-lizard-man
Head exploded. Gonna try this.
This is great stuff. I see the same issues of people not understanding themselves or play (types of) when in comments and videos there is an idea of “improv” without ever having studied or practiced what “improv” is. There is a nonsensical assumption that people just “make stuff up” without any structures, without understanding that the training of “improv” (many forms and styles) are all based in structural constraints to train the players to internalize said constraints when and if it pleases them.
Great post as always! Have you read [To Play is to Explode](<https://www.backwardstabletop.com/to-play-is-to-explode/>)? It's a good... side-read (?)(is that the right phrase???).
Nice analogy!
The sticking point I run into with this is the repeated appeals to the 'physics of the world' when the game world is (necessarily) imaginary - it has no 'physics'. Someone has to decide what this 'physics' says. That someone seems to be assumed to be the GM, here. That's fine - but it's an assumption and it's just one way of roleplaying. The game world - the game itself, in fact - is formed around a conversation happening at the table. It ultimately has to be the course of that conversation that decides upon the authority over the world's defined 'physics' and how that is formulated. At that point, it seems to me that the difference between 'physics' and game rules is more or less moot.
I found myself agreeing with everything you said in your post, but there's still something unsatisfying about it nagging at me.
Consider the counterexample of the commonly leveled criticism of D&D 4e not having a particularly fleshed out default setting. I played 4e quite a bit back in the day and this was very unsatisfying to both play and try to run a game in. It essentially asks every DM to homebrew the setting. In your framework, I suppose this generally puts it at Level 4, Self-Actualized Play, since there's no "intended domain". But I think we would agree that this is not an ideal to strive for.
My thinking is that having a very fleshed out gameplay world allows for more of the Level 3 and Level 4 gameplay than a fleshed out set of rules. Those who are inclined to do extensive worldbuilding on their own for fun are well-equipped for this. For those without the time or inclination to worldbuild, if the game's publications don't provide much of this, it becomes really difficult to self-actualize.
Another counterexample is fall damage. Take it as a corollary to the example of swimming. If you go by rulings on intuition of how the world works, the result can be pretty unfun If the game world is like the real world, if you fall out of a second story window laden with weapons and gear, you could break a bone, or die outright. That would be an unsatisfying way to go. As the game world lets the PCs regularly do more and more heroic deeds, the intuition for something like fall damage starts to become unintuitive.
For the rules on relationships, I'm with you. Most people want to play games where relationships work for characters work in a similar way as relationships in real life. So diagetic intuition works quite well.
Bit of a ramble but I hope it continues to explore some of the dark corners of your idea.
"If you go by rulings on intuition of how the world works, the result can be pretty unfun If the game world is like the real world, if you fall out of a second story window laden with weapons and gear, you could break a bone, or die outright." I think that's actually quite subjective! Games like Call of Cthulhu regularly embrace this kind of more realistic grit and it can work very well if your table is interested in it. I for one quite like running games where even jumping a 2m gap with a sharp drop is a significant risk. This is a tonal judgement more than anything.
"It essentially asks every DM to homebrew the setting." As you point out, this will be for some and not for others! I'd argue though that 4e definitely has an intended domain, combat and action montages, and it expects the GM to build a world that facilitates that. 4e is definitely interested in Level 2 play, since it encodes as much of what players 'should' be doing as possible. It's primarily a tactical combat game, where the world details actually matter a lot less since so much of what characters can and 'should' be doing is mechanically structured.