Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 3864000" data-attributes="member: 7240">As I said, playing the game wrong often is more fun than playing it right. So I have no dispute re: desirable outcomes.I would like to suggest that Rule 0 does not make all human action that is called D&amp;D into D&amp;D. Rather, I would like to suggest that we should look at the corpus of D&amp;D rules in the same way that we look at other systems that are based on an agreed-upon canon. Religions that have canonical Scriptures, countries that have canonical Constitutions sometimes contain rule zero-like statements. But these statements do not, in effect, nullify the canon itself. Rather, they are evaluated in a matrix of competing claims. In Mormonism, as you know, pronouncements of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator cannot be viewed as automatically nullifying canon and tradition -- one thinks of Brigham Young's Adam-God statements or John Taylor's statements regarding polygyny. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins with the &quot;demonstrably justifiable&quot; clause which states that the rights contained therein can be limited by legislation any time such limitation can be seen as &quot;demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society.&quot; But this declaration does not, in fact, give the Canadian state sweeping powers to run roughshod over codified rights.Ultimately, as in politics or religion, no single declaration about an individual's or a body's sweeping authority can nullify the rest of the canon, even if (or perhaps precisely because) that statement is embedded in the canon itself.There is a big difference -- a massive one. What I am saying is that these extremes exist within a wide continuum and are not of a fundamentally different type.To whom? To you or to the players?What if the players are more satisfied by a game taking place on fewer levels?What if the players are more satisfied by one-shots than campaigns?As long as you define better as &quot;better for me&quot; I have no problem with your definition. But once you define better as some kind of objective standard, then we have a problem.Note that in my post I was talking about &quot;wrong&quot; not &quot;worse&quot; -- I think that playing a game wrong can be better than playing it right.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="fusangite, post: 3864000, member: 7240"] As I said, playing the game wrong often is more fun than playing it right. So I have no dispute re: desirable outcomes.I would like to suggest that Rule 0 does not make all human action that is called D&D into D&D. Rather, I would like to suggest that we should look at the corpus of D&D rules in the same way that we look at other systems that are based on an agreed-upon canon. Religions that have canonical Scriptures, countries that have canonical Constitutions sometimes contain rule zero-like statements. But these statements do not, in effect, nullify the canon itself. Rather, they are evaluated in a matrix of competing claims. In Mormonism, as you know, pronouncements of the Prophet, Seer and Revelator cannot be viewed as automatically nullifying canon and tradition -- one thinks of Brigham Young's Adam-God statements or John Taylor's statements regarding polygyny. In Canada, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins with the "demonstrably justifiable" clause which states that the rights contained therein can be limited by legislation any time such limitation can be seen as "demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society." But this declaration does not, in fact, give the Canadian state sweeping powers to run roughshod over codified rights. Ultimately, as in politics or religion, no single declaration about an individual's or a body's sweeping authority can nullify the rest of the canon, even if (or perhaps [i]precisely because[/i]) that statement is embedded in the canon itself.There is a big difference -- a massive one. What I am saying is that these extremes exist within a wide continuum and are not of a fundamentally different type.To whom? To you or to the players?What if the players are more satisfied by a game taking place on fewer levels?What if the players are more satisfied by one-shots than campaigns?As long as you define better as "better for me" I have no problem with your definition. But once you define better as some kind of objective standard, then we have a problem. Note that in my post I was talking about "wrong" not "worse" -- I think that playing a game wrong [i]can[/i] be better than playing it right. [/QUOTE]

Verification