Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4045110" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think you are confusing two concepts again.&nbsp; Not surprisingly, its the same two things people are repeatedly confusing.In the above example:a) The player offered a proposition that was not in the rules: &quot;I want to stick my sword in the dragon's mouth to keep it from closing on the cleric.&quot;b) You decided that the absence of a rule specifically allowing something was not the same as having a rule that explicitly forbids something.c) You created an impromptu rule for arbitrating what happens when a character proposes to stick his sword in a dragon's mouth to keep it from closing.That all sounds good to me as well.&nbsp; In fact, this might surprise you, but it is the sort of thing I'd advocate.&nbsp; You shouldn't just say, &quot;No.&quot;, to a character.&nbsp; You shouldn't use the formal rules incompleteness as an excuse for not allowing reasonable actions.&nbsp; You should be able to smith out rules on the fly as the need for them arises.None of this in fact implies that the game rules are not the physics of the game world.&nbsp; None of this argues against my claim that game plays better (is more fairly arbitrated, less likely to have DM PC's, is less likely to generate conflict between player and DM, is more emmersive, is more likely to inspire DM's imagination in novel ways, whatever) if the events of the game are assumed to have abided by the rules of the game.All it says is that the absence of a rule specifically allowing something is not the same as having a rule that explicitly forbids something.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4045110, member: 4937"] I think you are confusing two concepts again. Not surprisingly, its the same two things people are repeatedly confusing. In the above example: a) The player offered a proposition that was not in the rules: "I want to stick my sword in the dragon's mouth to keep it from closing on the cleric." b) You decided that the absence of a rule specifically allowing something was not the same as having a rule that explicitly forbids something. c) You created an impromptu rule for arbitrating what happens when a character proposes to stick his sword in a dragon's mouth to keep it from closing. That all sounds good to me as well. In fact, this might surprise you, but it is the sort of thing I'd advocate. You shouldn't just say, "No.", to a character. You shouldn't use the formal rules incompleteness as an excuse for not allowing reasonable actions. You should be able to smith out rules on the fly as the need for them arises. None of this in fact implies that the game rules are not the physics of the game world. None of this argues against my claim that game plays better (is more fairly arbitrated, less likely to have DM PC's, is less likely to generate conflict between player and DM, is more emmersive, is more likely to inspire DM's imagination in novel ways, whatever) if the events of the game are assumed to have abided by the rules of the game. All it says is that the absence of a rule specifically allowing something is not the same as having a rule that explicitly forbids something. [/QUOTE]

Verification