Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8203258" data-attributes="member: 71699">As I believe you acknowledge, the plain reading of the text is disputed, but I do not feel that justifies either side in dismissing the others claim to correctness as "rulings not rules". I suspect that RPG rules are best understood as having normative import. Their meaning is arrived at through webs or layers of meanings - some of which might have other underpinnings - that at the site of the written rule is settled by consensus. The strongest interpretations are those that reliably meet the expectations of other players.That allows for genuine ambiguity - where two meanings are equally sustainable and where consensus splinters. Usually along pragmatic lines: each side interested in the ruling having the import they wish it to have. Post-splintering, the two groups can each justifiably hold that their version is the truth - exactly on grounds of their local consensus as to meanings. Their local normal. Rather than there being one right version, there are two. The basis for justifying their interpretation as true becomes local to each group.EDIT [USER=97077]@iserith[/USER] for visibility.</blockquote>