Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9520350" data-attributes="member: 71699">The halfling who wanted to fly example and the like remain focused on the player contributing acts for their character, and the GM saying yes or follow the rules. A rule in some game texts goes something like this "Players describe what their characters do." A broad rule like that seems to narrow player contributions to fiction to things their characters do.Say a player wanted to propose a consequence for some action, a theme for some location, a motive for some enemy? In game texts that didn't feature a rule of the sort indicated above (I mean silence on the matter, not other rules extending it) "say yes or follow the rules" would be open to a wider range of contributions.We're assuming the halfling who wanted to fly example operates falls within the scope of extant rules rather than silence. The assumed game text contains rules for flying, their presence implies that flight is only possible through appeal to them, and the halfling has no current means to do that.An overriding "say yes or follow the rules" principle has a powerful effect where the rules are silent. Yet past debates like the one you reference evidence that said silence is divided up (e.g. [USER=3987]@Bagpuss[/USER]'s "setting" and "milieu") and ruled over by equally powerful exogenous rules (unspoken norms and house rules). If one imagines stack-ranking those on the basis of how strongly participants have them in force for themselves, then I suspect that at different tables the "say yes" override will wind up inserted at different places.A group could improve their situation by choosing a text that contains rules they like and doesn't contain rules they don't like, but I suspect it's straightforward- and functional-ness still rests on their having shared the appropriate norms.</blockquote>

Verification