Gamer Law

[Piratecat]

I'm having a little trouble understanding the premise.

As far as I can tell, the need for in-depth rule interpretation varies from group to group, but never needs to be especially serious. This is a game, after all. the player makes their case, the DM makes their decision, and they move on.

 

[Hussar]

Welcome to the Lake Geneva Conventions

 

[Jdvn1]

First, it would be required that the "proper interpretation" of D&D rules actually does require legal-style contextual analysis, rather than this merely being the opinion of rules lawyers.

Doesn't that assume that the non-gaming counterparts don't convey their opinions? Laws are open to interpretations, just as rules are.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Though it can equally be said that it is merely the opinion of the legal community that all issues should be handled through lawyers.

Oh, not me! I sincerely wish that a day would dawn when lawyers were not neccessary, and people all over the world could form clear agreements and abide by them.

Until then...

 

[moritheil]

I'm having a little trouble understanding the premise.

As far as I can tell, the need for in-depth rule interpretation varies from group to group

Presently? Yes. But I imagine that at one point in time that description would have applied to some religions as well. Those religions have developed to become more formalized and to have a complex system of codified rules. Thus there are now such things as canon law, Sharia, and so on - systems that scholars spend a considerable amount of time arguing over.

I recognize that, barring a few extreme examples, gaming is not religion and it's pretty hard to mistake one for another. Thus I am asking what it will take for gaming laws to become that codified, that complex, and that ingrained in the minds of a section of society.

 

[Henry]

...people think of DnD as "silly" but equally absurd business concepts as dead serious, simply because they are conditioned to accept corporations.

So then, would it be possible to condition people to think differently of games? How could that be accomplished?

In a word: VALUABLES. Valuables would have to be at stake, whether it be souls (in the case of religious laws), life, liberty, or property (in the case of criminal, civil, and corporate law, respectively).

If D&D players were going to lose their rulebooks over their interpretation of a rule or game effect (if your character dies, you lose your hard copy PHB!) then you'll see rules law for pay.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

We aren't there yet. Perhaps its easier to think of gamers like engineers, or their precursors, a noted secret society, the Masons. We have our own argot and jargon and tools, get together in private places for private meetings where the public (usually) is not allowed, require various pledges (bring beer dude!) and oaths and, in short, act like a separate and distinct group. Yet we still (mostly) blend in with society.

I bet if someone were organized, we could eventually get a president elected.

 

[Ranger REG]

Could gamer law be next?

Well, Guardians of Order (maker of Big Eyes, Small Mouth anime-style RPG) have published a Role Playing Game Manifesto, which is about as close to a gamer's law one would envision (and by "gamer," I mean both players and game master, mainly GM in this one).

I got in PDF, but I could transcribe into text here, if you want.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I trieg Gamer Law, but there were just too many charts.

ftw

 

[Fenes]

I am a lawyer, so interpreting rules comes with the territory .