Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9170761" data-attributes="member: 7023840">This is a thoughtful response.I would say that this normally falls within the first step within my proffered two-step analysis ... defining the problem. In other words, what is a "problem" for one player (or constituency) is not a problem for another player (or constituency).The second issue is that very few things are actual "problems" (inconsistencies) within the rules. As you correctly note, some people don't like the way that actual gameplay works in some games (such as classic Monopoly). But that's not actually a problem- that's people that want different types of gameplay. Just because the rules aren't producing a desired gameplay doesn't mean that the rules are a problem qua rules.But there's a further issue. To use the "duct tape" analogy- to say that a physical object can be fixed with duct tape later does not mean that the problem didn't exist in the first place. However, most RPGs come with a Rule 0 (either explicitly or implicitly through norms). In that way, Rule 0 is part of the rule set. At a very meta level, using a rule to adjust or change rules is not a violation of the rules. To make this more concrete, imagine a statute that provides that a judge shall sentence a person to X amount of time, for Y crimes, but also provides that the judge may (at the judge's discretion) adjust the sentence upwards or downwards. If the judge adjusts the time to something that is not within the statute, it is not a violation of the statute- it is expressly contemplated by it. To put this in RPG terms, it is within the rules. I think we can discuss whether or not this is a good approach to take (whether such things should be discretionary or not), but it's strange to say that something expressly permitted within the rules is also somehow beyond the rules. IMO, YMMV, etc.</blockquote>

Verification