Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4045072" data-attributes="member: 4937">Ok, trying again. When I say 'rules' in this thread, I'm generally refering to the all the rules being used to arbitrate play.&nbsp; I am not only refering to the formal rules of the game as have been written down.&nbsp; When I say, 'rules', I mean literally all the rules.I believe in my 'd2' example that it was fairly obvious that all the rules being presented formally where all the rules period.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that in other game systems that this is true, but it was certainly true in my example.No, I don't.&nbsp; Why would you think that it would?&nbsp; I think quite the opposite will occur.&nbsp; The hypothetical players of 'D2' might not initially realize that they can offer propositions like 'I become President of Universe', but such a limitation isn't naturally arising from the resolution system of the system.&nbsp; It's arrising naturally from the players conceptual limitations of having lived in this universe, and if we play D2 by the rules it will be eventually overturned by the actions attempted by the player and the observed results.&nbsp; Suppose we altered the d2 system just a bit.&nbsp; Instead of all propositions being resolved by a coin flip, the referee was allowed to classify the propositions into 'heads', 'flip', and 'don't be an arsehat'.&nbsp; 'Heads' propositions always succeeded, 'flip' propositions succeeded 50% of the time, and 'don't be an arsehat' always failed.&nbsp; This effectively gives the referee in d2 nearly full narrative control of the game.&nbsp; (This is quite a change, since the first edition of d2 effectively gave most of the narrative control to the player.)&nbsp; Using this narrative control, the referee can impose limitations on the actions of characters to force the game universe to conform to his idea of how it the universe should actually work.&nbsp; Depending on the referee, this might make for sufficient 'casual realism' for the story to be believable to a person who expected the game universe to work something like the real universe.&nbsp; It would however basically boil down to DM fiat, and the players would not be able to foreknow what propositions would fall into each category.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4045072, member: 4937"] Ok, trying again. When I say 'rules' in this thread, I'm generally refering to the all the rules being used to arbitrate play. I am not only refering to the formal rules of the game as have been written down. When I say, 'rules', I mean literally all the rules. I believe in my 'd2' example that it was fairly obvious that all the rules being presented formally where all the rules period. That doesn't mean that in other game systems that this is true, but it was certainly true in my example. No, I don't. Why would you think that it would? I think quite the opposite will occur. The hypothetical players of 'D2' might not initially realize that they can offer propositions like 'I become President of Universe', but such a limitation isn't naturally arising from the resolution system of the system. It's arrising naturally from the players conceptual limitations of having lived in this universe, and if we play D2 by the rules it will be eventually overturned by the actions attempted by the player and the observed results. Suppose we altered the d2 system just a bit. Instead of all propositions being resolved by a coin flip, the referee was allowed to classify the propositions into 'heads', 'flip', and 'don't be an arsehat'. 'Heads' propositions always succeeded, 'flip' propositions succeeded 50% of the time, and 'don't be an arsehat' always failed. This effectively gives the referee in d2 nearly full narrative control of the game. (This is quite a change, since the first edition of d2 effectively gave most of the narrative control to the player.) Using this narrative control, the referee can impose limitations on the actions of characters to force the game universe to conform to his idea of how it the universe should actually work. Depending on the referee, this might make for sufficient 'casual realism' for the story to be believable to a person who expected the game universe to work something like the real universe. It would however basically boil down to DM fiat, and the players would not be able to foreknow what propositions would fall into each category. [/QUOTE]

Verification