Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7525445" data-attributes="member: 85870">In my view, all game rules are "descriptive," in that they "describe" acceptable end states. When I consider the purpose of rules in a game, ultimately the intent is to describe (define) what is and is not an acceptable change state / state change for those playing the game.To play chess, you accept that from any given current game state, there is a finite set of acceptable state changes that can result, based on the rules. Removing a player's queen from the chessboard is acceptable if it is captured by a knight. Simply removing an opponent's queen from the board when they aren't looking is not an acceptable state change.Ultimately, RPGs are no different---there is always a finite limit to acceptable "change states," the difference is that for RPGs, the boundaries of that limit are the unwritten group social contract. Yes, the range of acceptable end states in an RPG is likely trillions of times greater than a game of chess, but it is still finite. Every group has a limit to the kinds and amount of state change they are willing to accept in a given instance of their game.The difference with RPGs is that the written rules are not the only method to create "acceptable" state change within the function of the game. Consider:Player: "I attack the orc."GM (without consulting the combat rules or asking the player to make a single dice roll): "Okay, the orc is dead."None of the formalized combat rules were invoked to create this state change, but as long as the group agrees this is an acceptable change state, play can proceed from that point.One of the core, fundamental tenets of RPG play is that we accept on some level that human interposition (either from the GM or a player) can affect game state change outside of the formal, written rules. This is the heart of "Rule 0"---"Should the group agree, the Game Master may introduce state changes to the current game conditions/environment without consulting or invoking the written game rules."In some groups, "Rule 0" is solely the domain of the GM, in others it is available to both the GM and players, with varying degrees of authority. Assume for a minute, that one of the rules of chess was that instead of starting with the board exactly the same each time, a third-party observer would set up a unique board arrangement for each playthrough---"Wouldn't it be more fun for both of you if I rearranged the board with this challenge scenario, and see which of you comes out winner?"Written rules of any game are just a way of expressing, "If you choose to use these rules within the described (defined) context and function, these are the acceptable change states that can/will result."For games that are not RPGs, acceptable change states can only be generated by adherence to the written/hard-coded rules, whereas for RPGs this is definitively not the case. That said, I think it's extremely important that an RPG's written/hard-coded rules should be viable methods to generate acceptable change states. The point of hard-coded rules in RPGs is that many people believe it is more fun to formalize certain instances where human bias should be limited in controlling the range of acceptable change states.</blockquote>

Verification