Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4040244" data-attributes="member: 42582">If by &quot;rules&quot; you mean &quot;action resolution mechanics&quot;, then no.If by &quot;rules&quot; you mean &quot;gameworld, thematically interpreted&quot;, then maybe: yes for HeroQuest or The Dying Earth, no for TRoS or most vanilla narrativism. But I'll note that a thematic interpretation of a gameworld is not the physics of that world. For example: an obvious thematic interpretation of the world of the Silmarillion would make reference to Eden, the Fall and so on. But Genesis is not the physics of the Silmarillion.If by &quot;rules&quot; you mean some sort of express or implied understanding at the gaming table that &quot;Yes, this is what we're dealing with in this game&quot;, then I think yes, that is the source of the shared understanding of the narrative in most vanilla narrativist play. But such an agreement, express or implied, certainly does not establish the physics of any gameworld.No. You may really be saying that, but you may just as easily be saying this: &quot;Where the action resolution mechanics do not operate, the universe is such as the GM or relevant player having narrative control stipulates it to be, and such stipulations must broadly fall within the parameters of the real universe augmented by the magic mechanics, and must also be consistent with such prior stipulations.&quot;If you were saying this second thing, then the rules - of which that statement would itself be a part - are manifestly not the physics of the gameworld.Hence, the following claim is false (manifestly so, I say!):This may be true of some rules, but not all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4040244, member: 42582"] If by "rules" you mean "action resolution mechanics", then no. If by "rules" you mean "gameworld, thematically interpreted", then maybe: yes for HeroQuest or The Dying Earth, no for TRoS or most vanilla narrativism. But I'll note that a thematic interpretation of a gameworld is [i]not[/i] the physics of that world. For example: an obvious thematic interpretation of the world of the Silmarillion would make reference to Eden, the Fall and so on. But Genesis is not the physics of the Silmarillion. If by "rules" you mean some sort of express or implied understanding at the gaming table that "Yes, this is what we're dealing with in this game", then I think yes, that is the source of the shared understanding of the narrative in most vanilla narrativist play. But such an agreement, express or implied, certainly does not establish the physics of any gameworld. No. You [i]may[/i] really be saying that, but you may just as easily be saying this: "Where the action resolution mechanics do not operate, the universe is such as the GM or relevant player having narrative control stipulates it to be, and such stipulations must broadly fall within the parameters of the real universe augmented by the magic mechanics, and must also be consistent with such prior stipulations." If you were saying this second thing, then the rules - of which that statement would itself be a part - are manifestly not the physics of the gameworld. Hence, the following claim is false (manifestly so, I say!): This may be true of some rules, but not all. [/QUOTE]

Verification