D&D General Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?

[EzekielRaiden]

I think you are looking for a type of narrow univocality of labelling that was not Edwards's purpose, and that is not common in other taxonomic frameworks.

I mean...when it's pretty clear how negative Edwards thinks "incoherent" game design is, to the point that he seems to struggle to speak positively about "hybrids" etc. even when outright trying to do so, it doesn't seem like much of a leap (or, indeed, a leap at all) to see incoherence as being the defining reason why these things separate from each other.

The reason that high concept sim and that purist-for-system sim are both sim is because both focus on heightening exploration as the main priority of play. That's it.

Then, as I have said before, I see this as a fault built on reifying a union of distinct ideas arising from a quirk of the language we use, rather than the actual character of the things involved. Like someone saying that, because I would the same verb in the phrases "I love ice cream," "I love my boyfriend," "I love my homeland," and "I love the design of 13th Age," these things must all fundamentally be the same in some core sense, whereas "I enjoy long walks among the trees" must be fundamentally different because it doesn't. They are not, and indeed I wouldn't even put them in the same categories of actions, even if there's some commonality there (e.g. romance for one's SO is rather different from patriotism, even though both involve affection).

Even within high concept sim games, there is incoherence in that I can't at one and the same time have the exploration of situation that is typical of CoC and the exploration of setting that is typical of much Forgotten Realms play. Or if I foreground character, as in Pendragon, then setting will tend to be backgrounded; whereas foregrounding setting (again, as in FR) will tend to background character (a typical setting tourism adventure doesn't care who the PCs are).

Man, at least from the essays I've read thus far, I never got any sense of this! It very very much read like Sim is a monolithic thing that is fundamentally united with minor, perhaps even irrelevant details, not a vast category containing multitudes that could conflict internally. Same with the other creative agendas. This is...really really getting into territory of "why on earth did Edwards use the terms he used if this isn't what he meant?"

That's before we get to incoherence of colour: I can't get the colour of D&D and the colour of Traveller in the same game, for instance.

Perhaps I am daft. What does color refer to?

I guess I need to go diving in the "provisional glossary" again to get all these underlying terms defined because I thought I understood them (due to them being natural language stuff...) and am now seeing that no, it's turtles terms of art all the way down. Never, ever assume you know what a GNS term means on sight. Because it probably diverges, sometimes a lot!

But its still constitutes "system"...it just so happens that "system's say" is entirely "GM's (unbridled...unconstrained...unstructured...not principally informed) say." Doesn't this game look an awful lot like a complex, intricate system with all kinds of PC build and action resolution widgets and interactions that caveats hard with a "oh yeah...the GM can ignore or change rules/outcomes at their discretion if they feel like it leads to a better game"...except it dispenses with the illusion that all of that other stuff (PC build and action resolution etc) brings about actual, verifiable, insured-against-(overt or covert)veto, capacity to evolve the gamestate in a manner desired by the non-GM participant?

This reads, to me, like some logical pedantry (not that I have much room to complain about pedantry in others, but still.) That is, if we have defined system so broadly, then literally all activities are now an RPG system. Some are just awful stinkers.

But to answer the question buried in there...no, it doesn't look like that at all to me. What you call an "illusion" being "dispelled," I call rejection of an inherently valuable consensus between participants. "Dispelling" that "illusion" means stepping away from consensus and into dictatorship, and alleging the result is still a "democracy" in the Verinari one-man-one-vote style: Verinari is The Man and he gets The Vote.

In my experience, and in play I read about or view, cases of 5e Calvinball have been equal in number to cases of AW Calvinball, which is to say none of either.

Well, I haven't played AW, so I can't make a full comparison. But the constantly repeated "talk with your DM because this whole thing could be completely worthless if they decide not to use X" smacks pretty hard of Calvinball to me. There is this pervasive "nope we literally cannot even assume that there even are races, let alone what they might be, because absolutely positively EVERYTHING is 110% malleable, and indeed might even change from one session to the next." I see a lot of lip service paid to telling DMs to be consistent and little to nothing on how DMs actually become consistent, which just makes matters worse. (But, again, I am highly, highly skeptical of the claim that DMs are typically very consistent and rigorous in their freeform work. That would require a level of statistical understanding and working memory of past choices that I have not seen borne out, neither in direct experience nor in discussion with others.)

It's irrelevant what rules we have, unless we agree to follow them. Agreement is never located in a rule, it must pre-exist a rule for that rule to take effect. An example I've used before are these rules, governing our interlocution

1. Agree with whatever @clearstream says
2. Agree with rule 1

Even though rule 1 and 2 specifically say that they are about agreement - agree with @clearstream - agreement to them is not located in them. You'll decide on other grounds to go along with them (or more probably, not.)

....it is inherent to the idea of "a rule" that you are supposed to follow it, insofar as following it serves the purpose for which the rule was designed.* Just as it is inherent to the idea of rules to have a purpose for which they are designed. For something to be a rule, it must be both normative and teleological. If it is not normative, it isn't a rule: maybe it's a guideline or a suggestion or a proposal, but it's not a rule without normativity. Likewise, if it has no designed purpose or end, it isn't a rule. In fact I'm not sure it would be anything at all without a telos! Maybe a mere barked command?

The need for agreement is located in them because of the definition of thing they are (or claim to be), in the same way that the need for 90 degree angles are located in squares because of the definition of "square." To be a rule is to have both telos and normativity.

*This, incidentally, is why I get annoyed when people assert that "Lawful Good" must be inherently less Good than "Neutral Good." But that's a side issue.

 

[Manbearcat]

Am I right in supposing you allude to DM-curated RPGs like 5e here? I feel that could overlook a couple of things at play

1. The deontic consequences of what have been called exogenous rules (aka tacit principles)
2. The constitutive worth of all those "PC build and action resolution widgets and interactions"
3. The regulatory worth of rules guiding to proceed in a certain way

Those are all interesting in themselves, but there is a further concern that is more fundamental

• The matter of agreement to any rule

It's irrelevant what rules we have, unless we agree to follow them. Agreement is never located in a rule, it must pre-exist a rule for that rule to take effect. An example I've used before are these rules, governing our interlocution

1. Agree with whatever @clearstream says
2. Agree with rule 1

Even though rule 1 and 2 specifically say that they are about agreement - agree with @clearstream - agreement to them is not located in them. You'll decide on other grounds to go along with them (or more probably, not.)

In a game like AW a GM can still choose to not agree to any rule, running the game how they like. If the players enjoy it, perhaps they'll go along. The group are still relying on a mixture of the deontic consequences of tacit principles, and the worth they see in what is constituted by and guided toward by the AW rules.

In a game like 5e a DM is expressly empowered to apply, reinterpret, modify, or disapply any rule. If the players don't enjoy it, perhaps they'll move on. The group are still relying on a mixture of the deontic consequences of tacit principles, and the worth they see in what is constituted by and guided toward by the 5e rules.

System matters because folk have in mind their tacit principles, and are capable of discerning differential worth in what is constituted and guided toward. In grasping and upholding a system, they do so in order to - and typically in that way that does - secure the play they aim to enjoy. In my experience, and in play I read about or view, cases of 5e Calvinball have been equal in number to cases of AW Calvinball, which is to say none of either.

To stay on topic:

1) It is a necessary precondition for functional Gamism that players a priori know for certain that their tactical and strategic moves made will be honored. That they will interact with and affect the gamestate in an encoded way (at best) or a hugely reliable extrapolatable way (at worst) and each of these gamestate interactions will distill Skilled Play as will the collective throughline of them.

2) The system I proposed above does not inherently entail honoring the tactical and strategic moves of the players.

3) The system I proposed above does not possess encoded interactions with the gamestate.

4) The system I proposed above does not inherently entail a hugely reliable extrapolation in which players can infer how their interactions with the gamestate will affect it.


Conclusion?

As is, this system cannot produce functional Gamism.

So the conversational move you make above is to assert the 2 and 4 above will become emergent properties of play. I have to assume that you're appending "given x amount of time played", because it surely cannot be the case right off the bat. That is, unless, prior to play, the GM codifies a huge swathe of system-related game technology (effectively bringing back all of those things I excised and orienting them toward a Gamism agenda). So the questions I have would be:

* If we're just adding all of that back in to ensure (3)...why in the world are we excising it in the first place?

* If we're not (re)encoding all of those things up front to satisfy (3), then at what point can we reliably expect functional Gamism to become an emergent property of play because of the accretion of all of these purported, "Gamism-functional" (you've got to do a lot of work to show me functionality...you can't just assume it or smuggle it in) "exogenous rules" or "tacit principles." Session 3? 5? 8? At what point do these exogenous rules and tacit principles get uploaded to each individual players mental software and stress-tested through play sufficiently to corroborate to all parties both "its happening" and "its functional?"

I mean...what work is "exogenous" and "tacit" doing here for actual reliably functional Gamism play that "endogenous" and "encoded" won't do better?! The only work I can imagine "exogenous" and "tacit" doing better than "endogenous" and "encoded" is "to allow the GM to drift play at their discretion to prioritize alternate play imperatives (eg NOT GAMISM imperatives) when they feel the moment (of play) justifies this drift."

 

[clearstream]

To stay on topic:

1) It is a necessary precondition for functional Gamism that players a priori know for certain that their tactical and strategic moves made will be honored. That they will interact with and affect the gamestate in an encoded way (at best) or a hugely reliable extrapolatable way (at worst) and each of these gamestate interactions will distill Skilled Play as will the collective throughline of them.

2) The system I proposed above does not inherently entail honoring the tactical and strategic moves of the players.

3) The system I proposed above does not possess encoded interactions with the gamestate.

4) The system I proposed above does not inherently entail a hugely reliable extrapolation in which players can infer how their interactions with the gamestate will affect it.


Conclusion?

As is, this system cannot produce functional Gamism.

Ah, right, a different point and one I agree with. An important worth in the constitutive and regulatory rules of games is their capacity to satisfy our gamist concerns and motivations (among other things.)

EDIT Consider @EzekielRaiden Score - Achievement binary. If we have an interest in that purpose, then it is in our interest to put rules in force for ourselves that constitute or regulate it in a way we enjoy. Our gamist GM therefore, will have little interest in suspending those rules. Perhaps they will refine them, as many do in 5e who want a stiffer challenge. We might value our GM for thus curating the experience. There is normally no slippery slope from here to Calvinball, due to our shared interests and commitments (tacit exogenous rules, or principles).

So the conversational move you make above is to assert the 2 and 4 above will become emergent properties of play. I have to assume that you're appending "given x amount of time played", because it surely cannot be the case right off the bat. That is, unless, prior to play, the GM codifies a huge swathe of system-related game technology (effectively bringing back all of those things I excised and orienting them toward a Gamism agenda). So the questions I have would be:

Thus you can rightly describe that - as I outline - the GM will make the necessary commitments.

* If we're just adding all of that back in to ensure (3)...why in the world are we excising it in the first place?

* If we're not (re)encoding all of those things up front to satisfy (3), then at what point can we reliably expect functional Gamism to become an emergent property of play because of the accretion of all of these purported, "Gamism-functional" (you've got to do a lot of work to show me functionality...you can't just assume it or smuggle it in) "exogenous rules" or "tacit principles." Session 3? 5? 8? At what point do these exogenous rules and tacit principles get uploaded to each individual players mental software and stress-tested through play sufficiently to corroborate to all parties both "its happening" and "its functional?"

We're talking a little at cross-purposes. You expressed the concern that

caveats hard with a "oh yeah...the GM can ignore or change rules/outcomes at their discretion if they feel like it leads to a better game"

One example might be changes you proposed to TB2 journeys. You felt it led to a better game and players - seeing justice in your reasoning - might be very happy to depend on your wisdom in that regard. Nothing that is happening there is damaging to gamism.

I mean...what work is "exogenous" and "tacit" doing here for actual reliably functional Gamism play that "endogenous" and "encoded" won't do better?! The only work I can imagine "exogenous" and "tacit" doing better than "endogenous" and "encoded" is "to allow the GM to drift play at their discretion to prioritize alternate play imperatives (eg NOT GAMISM imperatives) when they feel the moment (of play) justifies this drift."

Extremely important work. They say that even if a group can suspend every rule, why would they? What leads us to follow game rules at all? The answer is not that the rulebook tells us to. Here I will just encourage anyone who hasn't yet read Suits (and related) to reflect on what is served by our lusory expectations and attitude as we step into the magic circle (yes, along with other stuff as @Campbell reminds). Suits didn't have it quite right, but I think he points in exactly the right direction.

EDIT Exogenous and tacit are not at odds with endogenous and encoded: they operate together. It's right to suppose that encoding can help us, but agreement to an encoded rule is not located in that rule. Nor do we agree to a rule just because it is encoded (for example we might go along with it without examination, just because we trust our group, or we wish to enjoy play with them).

 

[clearstream]

I mean...when it's pretty clear how negative Edwards thinks "incoherent" game design is, to the point that he seems to struggle to speak positively about "hybrids" etc. even when outright trying to do so, it doesn't seem like much of a leap (or, indeed, a leap at all) to see incoherence as being the defining reason why these things separate from each other.


Then, as I have said before, I see this as a fault built on reifying a union of distinct ideas arising from a quirk of the language we use, rather than the actual character of the things involved. Like someone saying that, because I would the same verb in the phrases "I love ice cream," "I love my boyfriend," "I love my homeland," and "I love the design of 13th Age," these things must all fundamentally be the same in some core sense, whereas "I enjoy long walks among the trees" must be fundamentally different because it doesn't. They are not, and indeed I wouldn't even put them in the same categories of actions, even if there's some commonality there (e.g. romance for one's SO is rather different from patriotism, even though both involve affection).


Man, at least from the essays I've read thus far, I never got any sense of this! It very very much read like Sim is a monolithic thing that is fundamentally united with minor, perhaps even irrelevant details, not a vast category containing multitudes that could conflict internally. Same with the other creative agendas. This is...really really getting into territory of "why on earth did Edwards use the terms he used if this isn't what he meant?"


Perhaps I am daft. What does color refer to?

I guess I need to go diving in the "provisional glossary" again to get all these underlying terms defined because I thought I understood them (due to them being natural language stuff...) and am now seeing that no, it's turtles terms of art all the way down. Never, ever assume you know what a GNS term means on sight. Because it probably diverges, sometimes a lot!


This reads, to me, like some logical pedantry (not that I have much room to complain about pedantry in others, but still.) That is, if we have defined system so broadly, then literally all activities are now an RPG system. Some are just awful stinkers.

But to answer the question buried in there...no, it doesn't look like that at all to me. What you call an "illusion" being "dispelled," I call rejection of an inherently valuable consensus between participants. "Dispelling" that "illusion" means stepping away from consensus and into dictatorship, and alleging the result is still a "democracy" in the Verinari one-man-one-vote style: Verinari is The Man and he gets The Vote.


Well, I haven't played AW, so I can't make a full comparison. But the constantly repeated "talk with your DM because this whole thing could be completely worthless if they decide not to use X" smacks pretty hard of Calvinball to me. There is this pervasive "nope we literally cannot even assume that there even are races, let alone what they might be, because absolutely positively EVERYTHING is 110% malleable, and indeed might even change from one session to the next." I see a lot of lip service paid to telling DMs to be consistent and little to nothing on how DMs actually become consistent, which just makes matters worse. (But, again, I am highly, highly skeptical of the claim that DMs are typically very consistent and rigorous in their freeform work. That would require a level of statistical understanding and working memory of past choices that I have not seen borne out, neither in direct experience nor in discussion with others.)


....it is inherent to the idea of "a rule" that you are supposed to follow it, insofar as following it serves the purpose for which the rule was designed.* Just as it is inherent to the idea of rules to have a purpose for which they are designed. For something to be a rule, it must be both normative and teleological. If it is not normative, it isn't a rule: maybe it's a guideline or a suggestion or a proposal, but it's not a rule without normativity. Likewise, if it has no designed purpose or end, it isn't a rule. In fact I'm not sure it would be anything at all without a telos! Maybe a mere barked command?

The need for agreement is located in them because of the definition of thing they are (or claim to be), in the same way that the need for 90 degree angles are located in squares because of the definition of "square." To be a rule is to have both telos and normativity.

*This, incidentally, is why I get annoyed when people assert that "Lawful Good" must be inherently less Good than "Neutral Good." But that's a side issue.

We're pretty much in agreement all through. I would say it's inherent to the idea of a rule that we may follow it. I point out however that our agreement to the rule is not located in the rule. As you indicate, a rule wouldn't be much worth unless we normally follow it. But we easily can and often do suspend rules that we don't see the worth in normally following, or change them. There's a paper by Reiland on Constitutive Rules that is worth looking at for more detail. He concludes

I started by noting that while many philosophers think that games, languages, and speech acts are constituted by rules, lots of others disagree. I also claimed that to argue over this productively, it would be useful to know what it would be for these things to be ruleconstituted. In this paper I’ve labored towards such knowledge. First, I criticized Searle’s views of the performance of rule-constituted actions and what makes constitutive rules distinctive. Second, I defended the Governance view of the performance of rule-constituted actions on which to do so is to either put the constituting rule in force or accept it as being in force. I also showed how this view works in the case of each of games, language, and assertion and illustrated its appeal by showing how it enables rule-based views of these things to respond to various objections. Finally, I argued that constitutive rules are distinctive in that they’re in force for us if we enact/accept them, they have a content that specifies necessary and sufficient conditions for the antecedently existing action to have the deontic status, and they’re enacted/accepted for the reason that doing so makes possible the performance of the new action.

One reason for us to enact/accept rules is that it is normal to do so. I pick up a new game text - the first thing on my mind isn't to challenge each separate rule to decide if I will accept it (put it in force for myself). Instead, I am foremost thoughtful about what the rule will do for me assuming (without examination for the time being) that I do so?

So with say TB2, I might get excited about playing an Elven Ranger and facing the crushing toils of the grind. I gladly put those rules in force for myself - even those that palapably disfavour my character's ongoing health, wealth or survival - for the distinct satisfactions gained from experiencing the various tensions or conflicts TB2 puts in play.

It's unsurprising that over time, as I become more expert, some rule might seem less worthwhile to me. GM or not, I might propose a change to that rule to our group, and we might all accept that change. And this is not even to get into the matter of interpretation.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

We're pretty much in agreement all through. I would say it's inherent to the idea of a rule that we may follow it. I point out however that our agreement to the rule is not located in the rule. As you indicate, a rule wouldn't be much worth unless we normally follow it. But we easily can and often do suspend rules that we don't see the worth in normally following, or change them.

That again seems to be such a weird way of presenting it. If it is a rule, it is to be followed where it indicates; if we are not following it, it isn't a rule. You are, essentially, saying that absolutely all rules ever, literally 100% of rules, are actually mere suggestions, which either are followed or aren't. That devalues the word "rule" so that it no longer means anything particular, it's a perfect synonym for "suggestion." What makes a rule a rule is that it binds us to a purpose. A rule that does not bind isn't a rule--and "DM says" is a binding only on the players, it does literally nothing whatsoever to bind the DM. Indeed, its specific purpose is to negate any possible binding on the DM.

One reason for us to enact/accept rules is that it is normal to do so. I pick up a new game text - the first thing on my mind isn't to challenge each separate rule to decide if I will accept it (put it in force for myself). Instead, I am foremost thoughtful about what the rule will do for me assuming (without examination for the time being) that I do so?

So with say TB2, I might get excited about playing an Elven Ranger and facing the crushing toils of the grind. I gladly put those rules in force for myself - even those that palapably disfavour my character's ongoing health, wealth or survival - for the distinct satisfactions gained from experiencing the various tensions or conflicts TB2 puts in play.

It's unsurprising that over time, as I become more expert, some rule might seem less worthwhile to me. GM or not, I might propose a change to that rule to our group, and we might all accept that change.

But the fact that rules are malleable in this way has no bearing on whether rules qua rules are binding. It has to do with their telos. You speak of "as I become more expert, some rule might seem less worthwhile to me." That, very specifically, is the process of learning the purpose of the rules, and learning whether you agree that (a) that purpose is worth pursuing, and (b) the rule actually does pursue it. By seeking to change the rule, you are not declaring that rules should not bind, here. You are declaring what they bind to must be worth the binding, and must actually come about from the binding.

And this is not even to get into the matter of interpretation.

Again, this is unrelated to the normativity, the binding, that the rules do. It is a debate or evaluation of the rule's purpose, and whether that purpose is being fulfilled. If the rules do not bind, then there is no need to interpret them at all--because a suggestion that doesn't make sense can be safely ignored. It is only when the rules do bind, and thus we must do something in response to them, that it becomes important for us to understand what they bind for and why.

 

[clearstream]

That again seems to be such a weird way of presenting it. If it is a rule, it is to be followed where it indicates; if we are not following it, it isn't a rule. You are, essentially, saying that absolutely all rules ever, literally 100% of rules, are actually mere suggestions, which either are followed or aren't. That devalues the word "rule" so that it no longer means anything particular, it's a perfect synonym for "suggestion." What makes a rule a rule is that it binds us to a purpose. A rule that does not bind isn't a rule--and "DM says" is a binding only on the players, it does literally nothing whatsoever to bind the DM. Indeed, its specific purpose is to negate any possible binding on the DM.

Consider the matter of cheating. A rule does not cease to be a rule just because a cheater disapplies it. (Views on that differ, but I feel that presents a normal position.) I think a rule has qualities going beyond suggestions, but that gets into very technical ground.

But the fact that rules are malleable in this way has no bearing on whether rules qua rules are binding. It has to do with their telos. You speak of "as I become more expert, some rule might seem less worthwhile to me." That, very specifically, is the process of learning the purpose of the rules, and learning whether you agree that (a) that purpose is worth pursuing, and (b) the rule actually does pursue it. By seeking to change the rule, you are not declaring that rules should not bind, here. You are declaring what they bind to must be worth the binding, and must actually come about from the binding.

Some ways that scholars have been thinking about rules include - cheating (as I noted), accidentally following a rule, following a rule in a different way from another who believes themselves to be also following that rule (i.e. interpretation), following a rule conditionally, following a sufficiency of rules, and so on.

Again, this is unrelated to the normativity, the binding, that the rules do. It is a debate or evaluation of the rule's purpose, and whether that purpose is being fulfilled. If the rules do not bind, then there is no need to interpret them at all--because a suggestion that doesn't make sense can be safely ignored. It is only when the rules do bind, and thus we must do something in response to them, that it becomes important for us to understand what they bind for and why.

Suits and others would have said that in the case of games, that puts the cart before the horse. We follow the rules because of the consequences we enjoy in following them. Not because they must be followed. In their extended discussion of games, Salen and Zimmerman (and others) make the point that it is distinctive of games that they are voluntary, and some suppose that a "game" whose rules you must follow is not a game at all.

I kind of agree with your point that the rules are most of interest when they bind, but please remember I was responding to a claim that a DM would be unbridled in their application of the rules of a DM-curated RPG such as 5e. My argument is oriented to the point that we put rules in force for us (or if you like, accept that they are in force for us) just because of the worth they have (the play they are constitutive of, or regulate in ways we enjoy.) You make the point this is a practice with normative force, which I also agree with.

EDIT The meaning of the rule is at issue in considering what it binds us to do. If as I say we must choose to put rules in force for ourselves, then the meaning we grasp them to have is as important as choosing to uphold them. It shows that the upholding alone incompletely explains what is going on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

From quite a way upthread:

I think Edwards is well aware that competition is not essential to gamist play.

He still seems to assume its presence in RPGs more than is common; even among a lot of gamist players, competing with each other isn't considered a virtue, because it can too easily interfere with the cooperative part. To the degree that its considered good is only in terms of being the guy who most supports the group's efforts, and I think there's some pretty heavy semantic loading in calling that "competition".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Consider the matter of cheating. A rule does not cease to be a rule just because a cheater disapplies it. (Views on that differ, but I feel that presents a normal position.) I think a rule has qualities going beyond suggestions, but that gets into very technical ground.

Well, I kinda follow the deontological perspective on this one. Cheating entails a fundamentally self-contradictory viewpoint: it means to benefit from the rules, while simultaneously consciously disobeying them. Or, as G.K. Chesterton put it, "Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it." (The Man Who Was Thursday, ch. 4) To cheat is to simultaneously will that the rules bind, and also will that they not bind.

Some ways that scholars have been thinking about rules include - cheating (as I noted), accidentally following a rule, following a rule in a different way from another who believes themselves to be also following that rule (i.e. interpretation), following a rule conditionally, following a sufficiency of rules, and so on.

I'm not sure how one could accidentally follow a rule one is aware of, nor how much relevance there is to following a rule one is ignorant of. Again, with interpretation, it seems rather silly to me to do any amount of "interpretation" on something one thinks is a mere suggestion, a cobweb, an airy aspiration. What value is there to sitting down and hashing out the merit of something that has no normative force? And if it has normative force, then it binds. "Following a rule conditionally" simply means following the same rule but with specified conditions (or, if you prefer, following a very similar rule that differs only in having additional exceptions.) I'm not even sure I understand what "following a sufficiency of rules" means, to be honest.

Suits and others would have said that in the case of games, that puts the cart before the horse. We follow the rules because of the consequences we enjoy in following them. Not because they must be followed.

Does that not contradict your statement, then, that you follow rules initially in order to discover what their consequences might be? How can one follow rules because of enjoyment one has not yet witnessed? That, to me, says that you follow the rules because they are things to be followed, and then upon review decide whether following them will be worthwhile going forward.

In their extended discussion of games, Salen and Zimmerman (and others) make the point that it is distinctive of games that they are voluntary, and some suppose that a "game" whose rules you must follow is not a game at all.

I mean, I'm not saying these are the only thing we have no choice but to obey, namely, physical laws (though it's worth noting how many games IRL do in fact invoke physical laws as part of play...) The rules of a game are obviously still a choice. But I very much grant your earlier best-practices example of accepting the rules without knowing whether they will be beneficial, because modifying rules requires some amount of experience or expertise first (humans are imperfect abstract reasoners, much to my chagrin!) Once we have that expertise--which can only be obtained by first being (willingly) bound by the rules--we can then challenge that binding, asking whether it is worthwhile to do so (whether because the rule may be faulty, or because the purpose may be faulty).

I kind of agree with your point that the rules are most of interest when they bind, but please remember I was responding to a claim that a DM would be unbridled in their application of the rules of a DM-curated RPG such as 5e. My argument is oriented to the point that we put rules in force for us (or if you like, accept that they are in force for us) just because of the worth they have (the play they are constitutive of, or regulate in ways we enjoy.) You make the point this is a practice with normative force, which I also agree with.

I still kinda am saying that though. "DM decides" means being unbridled by rules. The players are, of course, so bridled--by the DM's will. But what bridle does the DM bear? She is the one holding the reins, sitting in the driver's seat. What could possibly constrain her? The only "constraints" on a DM in such a position are the limits of good taste, which are not, never have been, and never will be "rules" in the way a game has rules (particularly since breaking them or cheating on them is incredibly rampant!)

 

[Campbell]

He still seems to assume its presence in RPGs more than is common; even among a lot of gamist players, competing with each other isn't considered a virtue, because it can too easily interfere with the cooperative part. To the degree that its considered good is only in terms of being the guy who most supports the group's efforts, and I think there's some pretty heavy semantic loading in calling that "competition".

Whether we want to call it competition or not that drive to earn each other's esteem for skilled play is central to pretty much any cooperative endeavor that is fundamentally about achievement or testing ourselves. You see this in the military, in professional (and amateur) sports, in effective raiding guilds in World of Warcraft, in most board gaming groups, etc. I think too many people associate competition with toxic behavior to the point where the value of the sort of comradery building internal competition that makes this stuff worthwhile is undervalued.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I kinda lost the track of what the point of the semantics debate regarding the word 'rule' was... To me it is clear the there always necessarily isn't a clear distinction between a principle, advice, convention and a literal rule, at least not in practice. Hell, like half the stuff regarding how UK is governed is just conventions, and not written laws; doesn't make much difference in practice. (Granted, I wouldn't necessarily use UK as an example of a well functioning country, but reasons for that likely lie elsewhere. Sorry to any Brits.) A lot of games kinda work in the same way.