Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4039726" data-attributes="member: 4937">Leaving aside that I think that they have to have some common framework to even do that, I still don't think this approach qualifies as 'not a rules based approach' if it is either the formal rules of the game or if it becomes a precedent for how future conflicts over the narrative are resolved.I somtimes play a game called 'Ultimate' which involves moving a flying disk across the field.&nbsp; It's fairly unusual among sports in that even at the highest levels of play, the players are also the referees.&nbsp; In its formally codified rules, it has a conflict resolution system that involves talking with the opposing player about the just occurred event so as to construct a shared narrative experience of the event.&nbsp; And it has formal rules for conflict resolution in the event that a shared narrative can't be constructed.&nbsp;&nbsp; These rules are unusual in atheletic competitions, but that doesn't make them any less the rules of the game.Likewise, when I play Ultimate there is an unspoken agreement that play continues without a turnover if the disk is dropped on the huck.&nbsp; It's not part of the rules of the game as written, but is effectively a rule of the game that the group I usually play with has adopted.&nbsp;&nbsp; And since it's an informal group that just plays for fun, that rule carries at least as much weight as the official ones you'd find in a rulebook (and more than alot of them).Most RPGs use very different sorts of conflict resolution systems than 'simply talking about the narrative and then making a decision', or 'if you can't reach a conclusion, flip a coin', but that doesn't mean that those resolution systems aren't rules.&nbsp; Rules, I think everyone agrees, don't have to involve tables and dice, even if, generally speaking in RPG's they do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4039726, member: 4937"] Leaving aside that I think that they have to have some common framework to even do that, I still don't think this approach qualifies as 'not a rules based approach' if it is either the formal rules of the game or if it becomes a precedent for how future conflicts over the narrative are resolved. I somtimes play a game called 'Ultimate' which involves moving a flying disk across the field. It's fairly unusual among sports in that even at the highest levels of play, the players are also the referees. In its formally codified rules, it has a conflict resolution system that involves talking with the opposing player about the just occurred event so as to construct a shared narrative experience of the event. And it has formal rules for conflict resolution in the event that a shared narrative can't be constructed. These rules are unusual in atheletic competitions, but that doesn't make them any less the rules of the game. Likewise, when I play Ultimate there is an unspoken agreement that play continues without a turnover if the disk is dropped on the huck. It's not part of the rules of the game as written, but is effectively a rule of the game that the group I usually play with has adopted. And since it's an informal group that just plays for fun, that rule carries at least as much weight as the official ones you'd find in a rulebook (and more than alot of them). Most RPGs use very different sorts of conflict resolution systems than 'simply talking about the narrative and then making a decision', or 'if you can't reach a conclusion, flip a coin', but that doesn't mean that those resolution systems aren't rules. Rules, I think everyone agrees, don't have to involve tables and dice, even if, generally speaking in RPG's they do. [/QUOTE]

Verification