I was checking over the GNS essay this evening to review terms for the Directoral Power thread, and I got interested all over again. Towards the back (Ch 5. I think) I noticed that Ron classifies FUDGE as facilitating Exploration of System. I was wondering exactly what characterizes this style of play.

I never thought of FUDGE as facilitating much of anything on its own... to me it's just an idea for representation and resolution with no guidelines for application. I always thought that the system, true to its claims, does not stand on it's own, but rather is a toolkit that can be customized for any mode of play.

Paganini wrote: I was checking over the GNS essay this evening to review terms for the Directoral Power thread, and I got interested all over again. Towards the back (Ch 5. I think) I noticed that Ron classifies FUDGE as facilitating Exploration of System. I was wondering exactly what characterizes this style of play.

Hey, I prioritized me some Exploration of System not long ago. A few weeks back, 5 of us unexpectedly had an extra day free. One guy had a "rescue the princess" one-shot that had been running through his mind for a while - he's a long time D&D fan, so of course this was his chance to run something in 3e - 10th level, he decided.

I (and interestingly, most of the other players) saw this as a chance to "test out" some aspects of the d20/3e system in actual play. I decided I wanted to see how the sneak attack of a high level combat oriented rouge worked out. I designed the character around that idea, in a not-quite-over-the-top Power Gamer kinda way. I threw in some story-hook stuff, too - it's almost impossible for me to create a character unless I can come up with some kinda interesting personality and/or story issue - but most importantly, the idea here was to "see how it works."

The game would probably have been pretty boring for me without that aspect - it really was your basic "princess kidnapped by evil cult" thing, with one interesting "bang"/twist at the end. In other modes, I'd say the game should have almost *started* with that bang, but here, it worked fine as the end.

I think some folks are perfectly happy doing this all the time - look at the rules, find something that interests you, and play through it to see the results. It (in the form I'm familiar with) is close to Gamism, but the Exploration is prioritized, not the skill/competition. If my character had been totally ineffective and/or killed, that would have been OK - I would still learn something about the system.

(BTW, that's not what happened - properly tweaked, in a group with other melee combat fighters so that flanking opportuities abound, this rouge kicks ASS!)

Longer term play in this mode is supported by many of the "bells and whistles" in advancement systems, where you get new toys to play with that alter how the instantiation of System works. Or by having more rules in different situations - in early D&D/AD&D, there'd be a different roll/resolution process for each situation. Combat was different from thief stuff was different from mass warfare was different from aerial activity and etc. Even (in-game) social issues can enter into this Exploration - what happens if we go to a city where EVERYONE is a thief? How does the system work then? For this mode, what might seem a flaw (no unifying mechanic) could actually be an asset.

While I think true and primary prioritization of this mode of play is pretty rare, I suspect it's an important part of more "instances of play" than is immediately obvious. To the degree that Robin Law's "fantasy shopping for boys" analogy of RPGs is true, I think this mode represents its' realization.
And that's what I have to say about how I see and sometimes use prioritization of System Exploration.

Gordon