Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Discussing 4e Subsystems: Retraining
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="GnomeWorks" data-source="post: 4519971" data-attributes="member: 162"><p>I think it greatly depends upon the social contract you're working with.</p><p></p><p>For some groups - mine included - the rules are an abstract representation of how the in-game world works. For these groups, the sorts of things you see in OotS are not unreasonable: take away the obviously metagame references and abuses, and you have a world that is reasonable given the 3.5 ruleset.</p><p></p><p>Saying that "$x shouldn't happen, even though it's in the rules, because it doesn't make sense" is an argument against such behavior, sure, but it doesn't appease folks like myself. It is in the rules - it is part of the system - therefore it is an acceptable thing-to-do for PCs and NPCs alike.</p><p></p><p>Of course, the argument to that is that we shouldn't be slaves to the rules, or somesuch. Well, that's all well and good - but there are rules for a <em>reason</em>, and there is presumably a reason that rule Y exists in the ruleset to begin with, despite its seeming nonsensibility. If the social contract is such that it is agreed that the ruleset represents the "physics" of the gameworld, then even seemingly-nonsensical rules are accepted, because it is agreed that the rules are an abstract representation of the "reality" of the gameworld.</p><p></p><p>As such, in your example, for folks such as myself, it is not really Carl's fault for making use of the rules as presented - it is the fault of the ruleset. Carl's abuse may be frowned upon, because it "doesn't make any sense," but it is <em>allowed</em> because it is in the rules, which are a mechanical abstract representation of the "reality" we're playing in.</p><p></p><p>"In-game justification" is - presumably - a reference to story reasons, but there is no ruleset-based reason for this to be necessary, and hence is not required, from my stance. If the justification is not rules-based, it is not solid enough for me; it is too easy to manipulate such non-mechanical means, and you get into a rather fuzzy area that is generally unpleasant to deal with and adjudicate.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="GnomeWorks, post: 4519971, member: 162"] I think it greatly depends upon the social contract you're working with. For some groups - mine included - the rules are an abstract representation of how the in-game world works. For these groups, the sorts of things you see in OotS are not unreasonable: take away the obviously metagame references and abuses, and you have a world that is reasonable given the 3.5 ruleset. Saying that "$x shouldn't happen, even though it's in the rules, because it doesn't make sense" is an argument against such behavior, sure, but it doesn't appease folks like myself. It is in the rules - it is part of the system - therefore it is an acceptable thing-to-do for PCs and NPCs alike. Of course, the argument to that is that we shouldn't be slaves to the rules, or somesuch. Well, that's all well and good - but there are rules for a [i]reason[/i], and there is presumably a reason that rule Y exists in the ruleset to begin with, despite its seeming nonsensibility. If the social contract is such that it is agreed that the ruleset represents the "physics" of the gameworld, then even seemingly-nonsensical rules are accepted, because it is agreed that the rules are an abstract representation of the "reality" of the gameworld. As such, in your example, for folks such as myself, it is not really Carl's fault for making use of the rules as presented - it is the fault of the ruleset. Carl's abuse may be frowned upon, because it "doesn't make any sense," but it is [i]allowed[/i] because it is in the rules, which are a mechanical abstract representation of the "reality" we're playing in. "In-game justification" is - presumably - a reference to story reasons, but there is no ruleset-based reason for this to be necessary, and hence is not required, from my stance. If the justification is not rules-based, it is not solid enough for me; it is too easy to manipulate such non-mechanical means, and you get into a rather fuzzy area that is generally unpleasant to deal with and adjudicate. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Discussing 4e Subsystems: Retraining
Top