Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9000022" data-attributes="member: 42582">It does help me understand your posts, thank you.I don't think other posters who have asserted that D&amp;D is notably flexible have been intending the same thing, though. At least, that is not at all how their posts have read to me.This is the proposition I flagged in one of my posts not too far upthread: ie that &quot;rule zero&quot; changes the normative expectations about game play, and that &quot;flexibility&quot; describes a type of normative expectation.Again, this is not what I have taken most of the D&amp;D is flexible proponents to be saying. To me, they seem to have been pointing to elements of the rules considered as a framework for play, rather than to normative expectations of the participants towards various participant roles.My understanding - as someone who did not take part in the discussions you're referring to, but has read quite a few essays, blogs, message board discussions, etc that came out of them - is that the principle concern was to design complete and functional games that did not rely on GM-as-glue. That's an important design goal, and one that I've discussed with others in many threads over the years. But I don't see it as having very much bearing on the flexibility issue. In the last part of this reply I will explain these doubts.To me, all this seems to point to a necessary condition of the sort of flexibility you are describing: namely, without &quot;rule zero&quot; the appropriate normative orientation will not be present.I personally have doubts about that claim, which I've illustrated upthread by pointing to the &quot;Advanced F***ery&quot; chapter of AW. Similarly, the existence of various BW supplements like The Blossoms are Falling,&nbsp; Burning Sands (? is that the right name - the Dune one), plus stuff in the Magic Burner and Monster Burner, clearly shows that &quot;kitbashing&quot; is expected: the supplements just happen to be the kitbashing that the designers are offering for sale. Etc.But even if the claim about a necessary condition were accepted, that wouldn't establish that D&amp;D meets whatever conditions are sufficient for being a flexible system. And that is what I have been focusing on in my posts. The Luke Crane hide-in-shadows anecdote is intended as one illustration of how D&amp;D struggles to meet those conditions. (Outside of 4e D&amp;D.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9000022, member: 42582"] It does help me understand your posts, thank you. I don't think other posters who have asserted that D&D is notably flexible have been intending the same thing, though. At least, that is not at all how their posts have read to me. This is the proposition I flagged in one of my posts not too far upthread: ie that "rule zero" changes the normative expectations about game play, and that "flexibility" describes a type of normative expectation. Again, this is not what I have taken most of the [I]D&D is flexible[/I] proponents to be saying. To me, they seem to have been pointing to elements of the rules considered as a framework for play, rather than to normative expectations of the participants towards various participant roles. My understanding - as someone who did not take part in the discussions you're referring to, but has read quite a few essays, blogs, message board discussions, etc that came out of them - is that the principle concern was to [I]design complete and functional games[/I] that did not rely on [I]GM-as-glue[/I]. That's an important design goal, and one that I've discussed with others in many threads over the years. But I don't see it as having very much bearing on the flexibility issue. In the last part of this reply I will explain these doubts. To me, all this seems to point to a necessary condition of the sort of flexibility you are describing: namely, without "rule zero" the appropriate normative orientation will not be present. I personally have doubts about that claim, which I've illustrated upthread by pointing to the "Advanced F***ery" chapter of AW. Similarly, the existence of various BW supplements like The Blossoms are Falling, Burning Sands (? is that the right name - the Dune one), plus stuff in the Magic Burner and Monster Burner, clearly shows that "kitbashing" is expected: the supplements just happen to be the kitbashing that the designers are offering for sale. Etc. But even if the claim about a necessary condition were accepted, that wouldn't establish that D&D meets whatever conditions are [I]sufficient[/I] for being a flexible system. And that is what I have been focusing on in my posts. The Luke Crane hide-in-shadows anecdote is intended as one illustration of how D&D struggles to meet those conditions. (Outside of 4e D&D.) [/QUOTE]

Verification