The Firebird
@thefirebirdslair.bsky.social
OSR fan. Practical simulationist. Working on Expedition-N and Weather Generation. https://thefirebirdslair.blogspot.com/.
Firebird by rosinka (https://www.deviantart.com/rosinka/art/Firebird-3-925061701). Check out her other work!
Firebird by rosinka (https://www.deviantart.com/rosinka/art/Firebird-3-925061701). Check out her other work!
Thanks for the recommendations! Hole in the Sky has been on my list. I hadn't heard of the Kansas one.
November 27, 2025 at 4:06 PM
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.
November 26, 2025 at 11:24 PM
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.
Hey, thanks for the conversation!
November 25, 2025 at 1:15 AM
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
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
November 24, 2025 at 11:42 PM
"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
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.
November 24, 2025 at 11:40 PM
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.
November 24, 2025 at 11:10 PM
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?
Or do you mean something else by "play for purpose", like games as pedagogy?
November 24, 2025 at 10:45 PM
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?
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.
November 24, 2025 at 10:37 PM
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
Compare: learning math with these rules vs learning math using a game with these rules
November 24, 2025 at 5:06 PM
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
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)
(I'm not sure if the train of thought in these posts is right, so let me know if you see errors)
November 24, 2025 at 4:20 PM
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)
(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.
November 24, 2025 at 4:18 PM
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.
November 24, 2025 at 4:18 PM
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
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
November 24, 2025 at 4:18 PM
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
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.
November 24, 2025 at 4:18 PM
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.
November 24, 2025 at 3:35 PM
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.
November 23, 2025 at 11:36 PM
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.
You may choose mountain climbing for the view or for the exercise, but both are games.
November 23, 2025 at 11:35 PM
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.
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
November 23, 2025 at 11:24 PM
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
November 18, 2025 at 3:51 AM
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.
November 17, 2025 at 7:44 PM
In other cases the players have no ground to stand on. "A greatsword does 2d6" is more playable because it matches player expectations.
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.
I think the latter.
November 14, 2025 at 1:20 AM
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.
I think the latter.