Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4039752" data-attributes="member: 4937">It proves that the statement that follows this claim is a false dichotomy.It proves that the above statements aren't sufficiently dissimilar to distinguish one type of play from the other, since the implicit contrast between 'playing by the rules' and 'not playing by the rules' isn't something you can draw as sharply as the original poster (or you) are trying to do.  By demonstrating that the assumption of the rules being incomplete was inherent in either statement, and by demonstrating that both groups were essentially extending the rules of the game through thier play, I'm demonstrating that the original posters constrast:did not in fact express a useful distinction.  Game rules ARE intended to model the physics of the game world (and they can't really do anything but do that), AND those same rules are also a rough simulation of the game world with the anticipation that the referee will extend the rules in narratively useful ways to cover uncovered situations as they arise.  And conversely, game rules ARE NOT intended to fully model the physics of the game world (because a complete description of most PnP universes is impossible), but those same rules at least implicitly expect the referee(s) to resolve uncovered situations in some manner. And I'm arguing, that regardless of how you look at the situation, by definition you can't play an RPG any differently than that.  No rules set is actually complete and doesn't develop a body of rules set by the precedent of play.  No rules about interactions in the game world can do anything but attempt to model the physics of the game world. If you go back in the debate, you'll look and see that that was exactly what I was arguing back when we were focused on that area of the discussion.I think it does, once you realize what it means.Well, what kind of debate doesn't involve a person deciding for themselves according to thier preferences?  It wouldn't be much of a debate if it worked any other way, would it?Anyone can lead a debate, but no one can't stop it from going in circles.</blockquote>

Verification