D&D General D&D's Evolution: Rulings, Rules, and "System Matters"

[Snarf Zagyg]

I question the fact that we always talk about the rules "binding", "chaining" or "limiting" the decision maker. It is this constant refrain that the rules are getting in the way of your all-powerful, supremely brilliant imagination... but I wouldn't have thought of psychic mushroom people. An entire scene I am working on right now via a play-by-post between a PC and a Myconid trying to fool them would never have happened if there were no rules for myconids and their spores.

Rules aren't just "binding" or "limiting" people. They are also a scaffolding that supports people. The rules can give us insights and lead us in directions we would not have considered. I just don't understand the attitude that all rules are bad, and it is a question of how much of this necessary evil you can stomach.

No- you misunderstand.

What is an adjective? Seriously, what is it?

An adjetive is a word that limits a noun. If you have a rock (noun) it can be any kind of rock. But if you have a red (adjective) rock, it can't be any other color. If you have a heavy rock, it can no longer be any other weight. And so on.

This doesn't mean the adjectives are bad. Just because adjectives "bind" or "limit" the noun in a particular way. But that's the purpose of them.

I think that if you drop your preconceptions about a desired outcome of this discussion- in other words, if you assume it is a discussion and not a debate, you would see that the truism that rules necessarily limit a decision-maker is not a pejorative.

It's neither good nor bad, it just is.

And actually, the legal world is based upon precedent.

I am going to cut off the rest of your comment there; no, things don't work in the way you describe. But none of that is relevant to the point I was making, which was a simple analogy regarding sentencing decisions and is a well-known debate. None of that is really germane to this blog.

The lesson, as always- People seem much more interested in taking analogies apart, identifying what doesn’t work, and discarding them rather than — more generously and constructively IMO — using them as the author intended to better understand the subject matter. The perfect metaphor doesn’t exist because then it wouldn’t be a metaphor.

If you didn't like the analogy, that's fine. But I'm pretty sure you understood the point.


EDIT- removed long explanation of incorrectness as it was not relevant to subject.

 

[Scott Christian]

Rulings over rules is just a simple device used to help players and gamemasters get into the mindset of the game they are playing. That's it. It is a political slogan, an ad campaign, a teaching phrase that might help some pedantic players (or gamemasters) move the story forward, instead of looking up rules.
This goes right along with the design concepts of trying to minimize the rulebook scanning. They feel people have more fun with the interactions than reading. It is literally, that simple.

 

[TheSword]

I am certain you wrote that conscious of the irony!

One feels heartened to be in possession of a rule for identifying good gaming groups (And fun, easy going people, too!)

Unfortunately you only find out which group you’re in when it fails or through extensive testing over time, which can be painful.

When it works, it’s great though.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think it follows that rules arise from things we don't have a good reference for.

Rules are often used to model things we do understand and have a reference for.

Chainmail has magic and unreal monsters. But that is all an optional supplementary part of it, the majority of the game's rules are for skirmish wargaming with fairly understood real world historical military style conflicts. The rules are there to model the situation and throw in reasonable probabilities, so that the players can engage each other in a game of skill and chance with consistent defined parameters at a certain level of abstraction. Not to define things we do not have a reference for.

Sure, but did everyone who play Chainmail have a background in understanding those probabilities? Or were the rules there to help them, in case they did not?

Again, I'm not trying to say that one is clearly superior to the other, but Rules aren't the enemy of the game. They can be just as easily used to free someone or lead them to new understandings as they can be negatives.

 

[Chaosmancer]

No- you misunderstand.

What is an adjective? Seriously, what is it?

An adjetive is a word that limits a noun. If you have a rock (noun) it can be any kind of rock. But if you have a red (adjective) rock, it can't be any other color. If you have a heavy rock, it can no longer be any other weight. And so on.

This doesn't mean the adjectives are bad. Just because adjectives "bind" or "limit" the noun in a particular way. But that's the purpose of them.

I think that if you drop your preconceptions about a desired outcome of this discussion- in other words, if you assume it is a discussion and not a debate, you would see that the truism that rules necessarily limit a decision-maker is not a pejorative.

It's neither good nor bad, it just is.

Okay, from a philosophical perspective on denotative meanings, sure, you are correct. However, most people I have seen making similiar claims are doing so from a connotative meaning of imprisonment and limitations being bad. And considering you seem to be advocating for a Free Kriegspiel style, with no rules, then you seem to be viewing rules as a net negative in some fashion. Otherwise, why advocate for removing them?

But, I think viewing rules to be similiar to adjectives just highlights my point. If someone asked what an apple tastes like, you will likely give them an answer. But, that answer will be very different if they ask what a GREEN apple tastes like (specifically thinking of Granny Smith apples, not underripe apples, which is even more specific in terms of adjectives)

And like you said, this is neither good nor bad, it simply is, and has positive and negative effects. Which is why I've been posting. Because while many people seem to be responding to the idea of removing rules and increasing freedom, I want to remind people that many of these rules exist for a good reason, and have positive effects.

I am going to cut off the rest of your comment there; no, things don't work in the way you describe. But none of that is relevant to the point I was making, which was a simple analogy regarding sentencing decisions and is a well-known debate. None of that is really germane to this blog.

The lesson, as always- People seem much more interested in taking analogies apart, identifying what doesn’t work, and discarding them rather than — more generously and constructively IMO — using them as the author intended to better understand the subject matter. The perfect metaphor doesn’t exist because then it wouldn’t be a metaphor.

If you didn't like the analogy, that's fine. But I'm pretty sure you understood the point.


EDIT- removed long explanation of incorrectness as it was not relevant to subject.

I wasn't deconstructing it because I don't like the metaphor, I was deconstructing it to show that the debate you are trying to reference is in a very different place.

There is a valid discussion to be had about Free Kriegspiel games where all rules are removed. I don't think the same can really be said about a debate to remove all precendent and judicial review and appeals from the legal system. And I think it bears remembering that a judge in a legal system at trial is not always the final authority, but a GM in a game often is. There is no one who overturns their decisions in most cases.

In other words, I think it is a difference of debate between "should there be any rules at all" or "how much power should one have within the confines of the rules". Because I do think there is a general consensus that rules are good in general. I think the real debate is the matter of degrees, because if no rules was the ideal place, we wouldn't keep going from a place of no rules, to rules. I think going full Free Kreigspiel is an over-correction more than anything else, since it inevitably leads back t the re-establishment of rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Okay, from a philosophical perspective on denotative meanings, sure, you are correct. However, most people I have seen making similiar claims are doing so from a connotative meaning of imprisonment and limitations being bad. And considering you seem to be advocating for a Free Kriegspiel style, with no rules, then you seem to be viewing rules as a net negative in some fashion. Otherwise, why advocate for removing them?

But, I think viewing rules to be similiar to adjectives just highlights my point. If someone asked what an apple tastes like, you will likely give them an answer. But, that answer will be very different if they ask what a GREEN apple tastes like (specifically thinking of Granny Smith apples, not underripe apples, which is even more specific in terms of adjectives)

And like you said, this is neither good nor bad, it simply is, and has positive and negative effects. Which is why I've been posting. Because while many people seem to be responding to the idea of removing rules and increasing freedom, I want to remind people that many of these rules exist for a good reason, and have positive effects.



I wasn't deconstructing it because I don't like the metaphor, I was deconstructing it to show that the debate you are trying to reference is in a very different place.

There is a valid discussion to be had about Free Kriegspiel games where all rules are removed. I don't think the same can really be said about a debate to remove all precendent and judicial review and appeals from the legal system. And I think it bears remembering that a judge in a legal system at trial is not always the final authority, but a GM in a game often is. There is no one who overturns their decisions in most cases.

In other words, I think it is a difference of debate between "should there be any rules at all" or "how much power should one have within the confines of the rules". Because I do think there is a general consensus that rules are good in general. I think the real debate is the matter of degrees, because if no rules was the ideal place, we wouldn't keep going from a place of no rules, to rules. I think going full Free Kreigspiel is an over-correction more than anything else, since it inevitably leads back t the re-establishment of rules.

Free Kriegsspiel paired down the rules to "the Umpire Decides." This is still a rule, it's just one that vests all authority in the umpire -- it's Bob says. That's a system, you can play it, and you can even work it to your advantage if you have some understanding of how Bob thinks. This latter was part of the point of Kriegsspiel -- it was a training tool for officers on how to fight wars. So, good grasp of the military thought being taught to you was a sure was to get favorable rulings from the Umpire, while anything innovative was likely to not get such favor. That that carries over into the idea of the GM just issuing their rulings (as the result of the Bob says rule) -- if it's something they agree with, you'll get a good response, if it's something they don't agree with, you will not. The landscape of this is anything but neutral and has pretty much nothing to do with "reality" but rather just the GM's understanding and current moods.

Which can be an utter blast -- this isn't to dis the approach, it's to point out exactly what's happening. This can be great fun, and it can be terrible. Free Kriegsspiel umpires were selected by the army to be umpires -- there was a vetting process. This helped ensure reasonably uniform (heh) results. There's no such mechanism for RPG GMs.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Free Kriegsspiel umpires were selected by the army to be umpires -- there was a vetting process. This helped ensure reasonably uniform (heh) results. There's no such mechanism for RPG GMs.

If WOTC has a certified GM accreditation program; would you apply for one? Would you be more likely to play in their games??

 

[clearstream]

In other words, I think it is a difference of debate between "should there be any rules at all" or "how much power should one have within the confines of the rules". Because I do think there is a general consensus that rules are good in general. I think the real debate is the matter of degrees, because if no rules was the ideal place, we wouldn't keep going from a place of no rules, to rules. I think going full Free Kreigspiel is an over-correction more than anything else, since it inevitably leads back t the re-establishment of rules.

I was reflecting on the resistance that D&D rules put up to our using them. There's a monetary cost barrier. There's a cognitive cost in reading and parsing hundreds of pages of rules. They do not force themselves upon us: very much the opposite of that!

One way rules are conceived of in game studies is that they are constitutive: a game doesn't exist in their absence. Another way to think about this - perhaps relevant to the current thread - is to suggest that we simply cannot say what game exists in the absence of shared rules. We come into possession of Wittgenstein's beetles. Up-thread @Puddles described a referee who I take to be unpredictable and inconsistent. How can we know what game is being played? Descriptions of FK reference something that has predictability and consistency - it will be about war, there will be terrain, there will be units, units will be able to render one another hors-de-combat, etc. An umpire who departed radically from what was expected would no longer be doing FK.

Perhaps the argument is one between preferring exogenous over endogenous rules (in the sense used by Bjork and Holopainen). In which case, the argument is perhaps truly over incommensurables. D&D is a published game, available to players everywhere. A set of exogenous rules however delightful cannot be that. Or to put it another way, how might a set of exogenous rules be made available to players everywhere? What is the minimum that must be consistently established so that players can speak in terms of playing the same game? Possibly the argument is best understood as a preference for how many rules - a sliding scale - or the level that rules work at. Neither of those are an abandonment of rules. Maybe most fruitfully a discussion about their rightful role.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If WOTC has a certified GM accreditation program; would you apply for one? Would you be more likely to play in their games??

No, because I don't need to in order to play with my friends. D&D isn't Kriegsspiel -- a game invented by a Polish Army officer as a training tool and embraced by the Polish Army as a way to improve at the art of war (and because it was fun). I believe there have been a few D&D clubs/organized play chapters that have required some form of registration/accreditation before, although the current version does not. I've had to register before to run official Warhammer 40k and MtG tournaments, and for some other games from other companies. I didn't have to, but to get results posts it was required. Those weren't really vetting, past some simple requirements (mostly met by my managing a hobby shop) and fees, but they were revocable for bad behavior or complaints.

But no, I don't think that D&D requires vetting for GMs -- this would be an odd thing to take from my point. Rather, I was pointing out another large difference between the conceptual space that holds Free Kriegsspiel and the one that holds D&D. There's actually very few things you can take from the former to the latter because they directly or even indirectly map.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I wasn't deconstructing it because I don't like the metaphor, I was deconstructing it to show that the debate you are trying to reference is in a very different place.

There is a valid discussion to be had about Free Kriegspiel games where all rules are removed. I don't think the same can really be said about a debate to remove all precendent and judicial review and appeals from the legal system. And I think it bears remembering that a judge in a legal system at trial is not always the final authority, but a GM in a game often is. There is no one who overturns their decisions in most cases.

You aren't very good at taking the hint, are you?

EDIT- removed and changed to this:

That's not how sentencing work. That's not what I was talking about This has nothing to do with "removing all precedent and judicial review and appeals from the legal system."

However, none of this matters to the instant issue since it was just an analogy. Moreover, this is not the Politics and Law blog- this is for RPGs. If you want to poorly explain the law, do it to someone else, please.