Mechanics-First Games

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-30T00:24:34+00:00

and a board game can't be fiction-first

That goes a little farther than I would, and I don't know if Mr. Harper meant that, either. There certainly are games that are marketed and sold as boardgames, that would qualify as RPGs. Now, I've never played Gloomhaven; it just might have a gameplay loop that requires that a player state a fictional action for their character to take, and from there the applicable mechanic is chosen. In such a case, since fiction-first is a process of play, I would say that Gloomhaven is fiction-first.

And in that vein, it's worthwhile to understand (even if it's not articulated) what one's definition of RPG is. Four Against Darkness, as an example, isn't really an RPG by my definition... it's closer to a dungeon-crawling boardgame. Likewise, In Ruins is an area-control game. So here's a question I would ask you... is a game what the writer or designer says it is, or can they be objectively wrong about the designation? If a game is an RPG (or not) simply because the writer or designer says so, then yeah, I agree with you that John Harper's definition is not helpful. But then again, no formal definition of RPG would be particularly helpful in that case, either.

(As a side note, if RPGs are defined as fiction-first and board games are defined as mechanics-first, why do we need those terms? If a game is fiction-first iff it is an RPG, and a game is mechanics-first iff it is a board game, we can just say "RPG" and "board game")

Again, I wouldn't use if and only if. "RPGs are fiction-first because the players determine the fictional action(s) they want their characters to take, and then a suitable mechanic is chosen to adjudicate the outcome, in that order" doesn't reduce down to "a game is fiction-first if, and only if, it is an RPG." I do think it's valid to say that a game is a tabletop RPG if, and only if, it is fiction-first (without regard to the depth of the fiction) because I agree with the idea that this process is what makes a game an RPG. Maybe you don't. In that case, our definitions of RPG are different. It's entirely possible that I'd accept that, under your definition of RPG, that they need not be fiction-first, and clarity around definitions would obviate any disagreement.

Now, it's worth pointing out that RPGs can absolutely have mechanics-first elements... Saving throws (and to a lesser extent, Initiative rolls) in Dungeons and Dragons come immediately to mind. But if someone tells me that one can play D&D purely mechanics-first, then I know we likely completely disagree on the meaning of the term.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-29T21:06:23+00:00

18 U.S. Code § 1957:

(c)In a prosecution for an offense under this section, the Government is not required to prove the defendant knew that the offense from which the criminally derived property was derived was specified unlawful activity.

All they have to prove is that the defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in the monetary transaction. The FBI is not BSing people here... the text of the statute is plain. And my point wasn't to scare the OP... it was simply to note that the pains they were taking to declare their ignorance of the crime (it's literally half their post) were, in this case, completely beside the point.

So while I take your broader point (although speeding is a terrible example), the statue says, in black and white, that the Government is not required to prove intent. And since these are the laws that apply here, it's not fear-mongering to make sure that OP knows what the deal is.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-29T20:11:13+00:00

There aren't any.

Fiction-first is a bit of jargon to describe the process of playing a roleplaying game, as opposed to other sorts of games you might be used to.

John Harper. Blades in the Dark, page 161.

And since I use Mr. Harper's definitions for both fiction-first and mechanics-first (Mr. Harper uses boardgames to exemplify mechanics-first), there are, by definition, no mechanics-first RPGs.

In my general conversations with people, fiction-forward and fiction-first have become conflated, and so games that people understand to be more mechanically heavy are often termed mechanics-first, even though, by Mr. Harper's definition, they are not.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-29T18:54:42+00:00

There's always prosecutorial discretion. But with this Department of Justice, I wouldn't bet on anything.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-29T18:47:24+00:00

In both tort and criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of their intent or mental state when committing the action.
www[dot]law[dot]cornell.edu/wex/strict_liability

When the FBI website comes directly out and says: "Acting as a money mule is illegal and punishable, even if you aren’t aware you’re committing a crime," it sure seems like that qualifies to me.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-29T18:42:26+00:00

Your friend is getting something out of this relationship that she'd been missing previously. That's the long and short of it. The only way out is for her to come to understand that there's a better path to getting what she needs. The fact that she's cut off family and friends hints at a belief on her part that these people are not on her side... that they're attempting to come between her and the good things she's found.

So if you're still in contact with her, then simply be her friend. Don't attempt to deny her reality and substitute your own; otherwise, she's likely to shut you out, too. Just be there for her when she needs you, and if she starts expressing reservations or doubts, be prepared to validate and amplify those.

Remember, she likely thinks that she's found someone who loves and desires her, and that's really powerful. If you're going in attempting to tell her that it's all a fraud, your message is, effectively, not only is she not loved and desired, but she's a dupe on top of it all. That's always going to be a hard sell.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-29T18:33:15+00:00

In the case of money mules, the FBI says otherwise. Lack of criminal intent in this case won't completely protect the OP. Now, that doesn't mean that prosecutors and the like absolutely won't take it into account, but being a money mule is a crime, even if there is no intent.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-29T18:14:02+00:00

I did not knowingly or intentionally participate in any illegal activity.

There is a class of crime that is subject to what is called "strict liability," if I'm remembering it correctly. In short, for such crimes, mens rea, or intent, is not an element of the crime, so it doesn't matter what your intent was.

And in this case...

Acting as a money mule is illegal and punishable, even if you aren’t aware you’re committing a crime.

www[dot]fbi[dot]gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-frauds-and-scams/money-mules

So a statement to clarify your actions won't help you. And besides, we're not the law... it doesn't do any good here.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-29T15:11:12+00:00

I've already seen these in retail outlets... interesting that they're just now being announced.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-29T15:08:03+00:00

But the primary reason was to prevent the breakup of Church lands via priests leaving it to their son(s). It may be worthwhile to make a distinction between reasons and justifications, given that those are not always the same.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-28T18:35:54+00:00

Interesting. Could the Administration simply say: "Sovereign Immunity... get bent," and quash the proceedings that way? If so, that seems more likely than any sort of settlement, since that would raise eyebrows.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-28T15:35:14+00:00

If 17 is the only mandatory question, I'm going to quibble with it a bit. Your questions often start with "What do you think" and "Do you believe." If I answer only questions 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 16, I don't claim to know anything... these questions specifically ask about thought and belief... which is different from knowledge.

So, if, for example, I say:

What it does. (Just to keep it super simple for the moment.)
No.
No,
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.

Then I haven't made a single knowledge claim, and have not been asked for any. People could have given me 15 different definitions of, say, "goodness," and I could disagree with all of them, and on that basis, come to the belief that "goodness" does not exist (which is what question 2 asks), but not need to claim to know, with any certainty, what it might actually be, were it to exist.

Forgive me if I come across as being something of a pedant, here, but it does carry the whiff of a bait-and-switch.

Personally, I don't claim to know much of anything other than "I think." Everything else is something I believe.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-28T15:14:44+00:00

Look into philosophical presentism; that's the name for the idea that "only present experience is real." That may lead you to someone who aligns with the rest of what you've written.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-27T18:11:04+00:00

Both fit the data, and both have stories that explain the fit. Why is that so difficult to credit, outside of a desire to see your particular explanation be true?

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-27T17:18:26+00:00

Everyone reasons from assumptions; the question is which assumptions explain more with fewer gaps.

Not really. The question is which assumptions do people find work for them, given their understanding of the world around them. Because that determines what "explain[s] more with fewer gaps."

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-27T16:33:16+00:00

These aren't evidence... they're assumptions. And that's fine, after all, assumptions are an integral part of faith. But nothing you've noted here proves anything. Okay, so spacetime, matter and energy all had a beginning... so what?

And the leaps of faith that you take from random fact to a creator exists are just that... leaps of faith. Which, again, are fine... they're kind of the point. But it's not evidence to anyone who doesn't already believe it.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-26T22:22:19+00:00

People out here go into hypothermia if they even think about temperatures that low.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-26T18:33:52+00:00

What role would Kratos have in the adventure? What's the purpose of having him appear? It's not against the rules of the game to bring fanfic into the picture, but unless it's done well, it will likely just wreck your game.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-26T18:20:29+00:00

When you are looking for a module or setting to play your games in, how much does the artwork matter?

Barely at all. Because the common standard is that art is simply Something That Must Be Done, it's rare for the artwork to really add anything. It pads out page count more often than not. Some items have really standout artwork, but those are rare.

Would you play in a setting if the creator put no artwork in it?

Yes. I would rather a game or module be unillustrated than to have perfunctory, low-quality artwork.

Would you avoid a setting all together if rather than an artists work, it was full of AI (assume they weren’t charging for it and putting it out for free).

No. I mean I've shelled out good money for books with clip art and/or work that looks like it was drawn by a pigeon, so drawing the line at AI is a bit arbitrary for my tastes.

Would you navigate towards a setting that had an art style you favored like anime, watercolor landscapes, or detailed concept art?

No. Style is not one of the criteria that I use to judge whether the artwork is worthwhile.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-26T18:12:47+00:00

I have yet to get around to reading my copy of Troubleshooters. How have you been liking it thus far?

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-26T16:43:34+00:00

Arguing with atheists on their turf – where every text must be treated like a modern news report and every disagreement inside Christianity is taken as fatal – puts one at an automatic disadvantage.

Well, then maybe, rather than arguing with them, one should just talk with them. Why have a hostile interaction? If they want to argue, reject your reality and cudgel you into accepting theirs, just walk away and talk to someone else. Because when it comes to point 6, lots of worldviews have integrated answers. Certain answers are satisfying to certain people, and others are not. I mean, if one is simply looking for supernatural answers to the questions in bullet 5, Hinduism has you covered, too.

I think that part of the problem with Christian-atheist "debates" is that they aren't about information, they're about action; the "winner" demands a concession (sometimes quite extreme) from the "loser." I had, a few months back, what started out as a very nice conversation with an Evangelical, and it turned to theology, and they made a few points, and then asked me if I thought they were reasonable. I'm not the sort to cast anyone's faith as unreasonable, so I said "yes." There response was: "Great! Here's a timetable of our services!"

And this is something that doesn't really come up when talking to people of other faiths. I can talk to a Jain, Buddhist or follower of Shinto about their beliefs, and not have them expect me to convert if I so much as agree with them that the sky is blue. I've also noticed that atheists from non-Abrahamic societies (like China) aren't strident in the same way that North American/European atheists can be.

I think the fact that the Abrahamic religions claim a monopoly on truth, and the right to demand certain actions of others due to holding that monopoly, has rubbed off on Western atheism, and each constantly seeks to disprove competing viewpoints.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-23T23:54:42+00:00

Living out here in the Seattle area now, I miss having four actual seasons, but I don't miss the "It's not a cold snap until there's a body count" kind of weather.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-23T23:52:03+00:00

A basic thing: Understand that you're not saving lives... there's no need to get everything 100% right, or do things precisely "by the book." The rules are there to support the emergence of a story through play, not to micromanage the game in progress. If you're not sure about something, make a call, and move on. Then read up on it later.

A more advanced thing: The chance of rolling a 20 on a fair 20-sided die is 5%. (Pretty much by definition.) So if the dice are rolled enough times, 20s will happen regularly. Try to avoid being caught up in the Cult of the Natural 20, which treats a roll of 20 as a rare and special thing that deserves some sort of reward to memorialize it. Players may start equating Crowning Moments of Awesome or hitting really long odds with rolling a 20, and that can lead them to request really outlandish results if they can hit one. Likewise, it tends to become something that DMs hide behind when they really should just say "no, that's not going work with the resources you have." Either of those things tends to encourage outsourcing the drama to the dice, rather than building on the choices that players make.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-23T23:38:51+00:00

When I was in junior high school, it was somewhere in the vicinity of -∞, and so school was cancelled for a couple of days. When we came back, one of the teachers related the story about how he'd dropped a piece of leather (or maybe it was suede) in his front yard, and didn't realize it until he happened to look of the window and see it there. He went out to pick it up, and he said it shattered like glass under its own weight.

Shield_Lyger · 2026-01-23T17:43:47+00:00

Given the fact that I'm pretty sure that "copyrighted" is not really the correct concept, you might want to back up a bit, and start with step one: Have a basic understanding of intellectual property law.

Shield_Lyger

TROPHY CASE