Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8992657" data-attributes="member: 6790260">So, would you say that this is an issue with the rules failing to prohibit bad-faith behavior, or an issue with the players engaging in bad-faith behavior despite knowing that such behavior is deleterious to the game?I would argue this is...at the very least making too strong a case for the early editions of D&D. That's why people speak of it as a "toolkit" rather a lot, seeing it as being intended for the DM to legitimately make their own rules, on the regular, as one of the main purposes of play. This has, of course, not been maintained in later editions, for a variety of reasons. It might not be to-the-hilt true that you ABSOLUTELY HAVE to engage in ad-hoc game design...but it was designed expecting that you'd do so.Again, I would disagree, because there can be (and, historically, were) editions where this was expected of the DM. The DM could choose to do so, in exactly the same way as the DM can choose to run D&D without ever having a single combat at all, but you'd be clearly running counter to the designed purpose of the game by doing so.I guess what I'm saying is, "require" has a softer meaning here than you seem to think. With the hard meaning you appear to be using, well, nothing whatsoever is "required" by playing any game ever, because you can always choose to just...not do any particular thing. It's much like the problem with asking about whether any particular piece of game design is "necessary"--in the hardest meaning of that term, literally nothing is "necessary" for game design, everything is contingent to some degree.I don't really understand your point here. Of course judgment calls are required...that's literally what others have been arguing.Personally, I would argue the difference is something else. That is, "gaps" in D&D usually come from trying to aim for a critical mass of discrete rules, while "gaps" in Fate and similar games come from being unsure exactly how best to apply the small set of nearly-universal rules. Analogically, D&D builds with bricks, but some bricks may be structurally weak or even simply never placed at all, leaving holes in the walls of the house. By comparison, Fate builds with cement, which can be shaped into whatever form you like, but requires you to always shape it and hold it in place long enough for it to set, meaning you may find weak points due to how you shaped it previously.Also, I personally have no idea what you mean by "situations that do require judgment calls in D&D are of a kind that it is easier to make rules for that have similar 'shape' as the existing rules." That is, it sounds like the opposite of true: D&D requires that you create tailor-made solutions for each individual case, or else suspend rule-making entirely and rely only on ad-hoc judgments aka "rulings." (Noting, of course, that ad-hoc judgments--"rulings"--which become consistent precedent are actually tailor-made solutions--"rules"--just ones not thought of as such when they were created.)I don't think I understand your point here. A well-designed "all-encompassing abstract rules framework" as you say (noting that I use "framework" somewhat differently) should be much easier for allowing judgment based on "your everyday experience as a human being." Because discrete rules do nothing more nor less than what they say they do, even if that requires irrational consequences. Abstract rules already have to be applied via concrete things, which "your everyday experience" is a perfectly fine example.</blockquote>

Verification