Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6093847" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think the consensus problem comes about because there is no agreement on what the rules should be for. The vast majority of maxims for rule construction can only be conditionally imperative - &quot;IF you want a game like this THEN you should design a rule like this&quot;. Very, very few maxims for rule writing are absolute imperatives (&quot;you should ALWAYS do this&quot; ). To form a conditional imperative, you have to know what type of result you want - and there is no consensus on that for D&amp;D, even though some folk state things as if there was an &quot;obvious&quot; or &quot;correct&quot; aim for the game's design.That's not to say that there aren't wrong ways to design the rules. Some are self-defeating or just irrelevant/meaningless. But until the designers of the new rule set actually decide what the rules are for, we're just flailing about in the dark - and the inevitable consequence will be an incoherent hodge-podge of rules, because different bits of the rules will be trying to achieve different things. I was kinda hoping the designers would have made clear what the aim and purpose of DDN was by now - but, if anything, it's getting less clear, not more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6093847, member: 27160"] I think the consensus problem comes about because there is no agreement on what the rules should be [i]for[/i]. The vast majority of maxims for rule construction can only be conditionally imperative - "IF you want a game like [i]this[/i] THEN you should design a rule like [i]this[/i]". Very, very few maxims for rule writing are absolute imperatives ("you should ALWAYS do [i]this[/i]" ). To form a conditional imperative, you have to know what type of result you want - and there is no consensus on that for D&D, even though some folk state things as if there was an "obvious" or "correct" aim for the game's design. That's not to say that there aren't [i]wrong[/i] ways to design the rules. Some are self-defeating or just irrelevant/meaningless. But until the designers of the new rule set actually decide what the rules are [i]for[/i], we're just flailing about in the dark - and the inevitable consequence will be an incoherent hodge-podge of rules, because different bits of the rules will be trying to achieve different things. I was kinda hoping the designers would have made clear what the aim and purpose of DDN was by now - but, if anything, it's getting less clear, not more. [/QUOTE]

Verification