Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Game rules are not the physics of the game world
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4039657" data-attributes="member: 32164"><p>Ah. But for the purpose of what everyone (save you) was actually discussing, is the rhetorical device you used to "win" the argument actually relevant? What does stating out loud that "hey, the rules cover all rules, even rules about ignoring rules," actually prove?</p><p></p><p>In other words, your statement and victory is irrelevant to the discussion and debate, which actually boils down to this:</p><p></p><p>Should events in the gameworld be constrained by what is "possible" following a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written (and potentially also including anything with a mechanistic resolution system that the DM decides to add to his game)? Or are all those mechanistic rules merely an abstraction intended to facilitate gameplay that have no bearing on what's actually possible in a narrative context?</p><p></p><p>And your semantic victory doesn't answer that debate. Moreover, from what I can tell, there is no answer to the debate, except what each person decides for themselves according to their preferences.</p><p></p><p>It's like (and strangely enough, tied up with :\ ) the old discussion about whether hit points represent one's ability to absorb actual physical damage or just a playable abstraction representing one's ability to avoid being seriously injured. Neither answer is objectively "right" or "wrong."</p><p></p><p>And I still think we're doing nothing but going in circles at this point.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 4039657, member: 32164"] Ah. But for the purpose of what everyone (save you) was actually discussing, is the rhetorical device you used to "win" the argument actually relevant? What does stating out loud that "hey, the rules cover all rules, even rules about ignoring rules," actually prove? In other words, your statement and victory is irrelevant to the discussion and debate, which actually boils down to this: Should events in the gameworld be constrained by what is "possible" following a literal interpretation of the D&D rules as written (and potentially also including anything with a mechanistic resolution system that the DM decides to add to his game)? Or are all those mechanistic rules merely an abstraction intended to facilitate gameplay that have no bearing on what's actually possible in a narrative context? And your semantic victory doesn't answer that debate. Moreover, from what I can tell, there is no answer to the debate, except what each person decides for themselves according to their preferences. It's like (and strangely enough, tied up with :\ ) the old discussion about whether hit points represent one's ability to absorb actual physical damage or just a playable abstraction representing one's ability to avoid being seriously injured. Neither answer is objectively "right" or "wrong." And I still think we're doing nothing but going in circles at this point. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Game rules are not the physics of the game world
Top