Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ripzerai" data-source="post: 3346245" data-attributes="member: 38324">In the context of this thread, it seems we're defining rules as numerical qualities assigned to various characteristics of a character. It should be obvious, however, that these are not the only kinds of rules that can define a game. Some RPGs use variants of "rock, paper, scissors" to determine the outcomes of in-game contests, for example. So what is a rule? Ultimately, it's any agreed-upon standard. If the DM says "you get past the monster if you can speak persuasively enough to satisfy me," that's a rule. It's arbitrary and perhaps a bit "unfair," but no one can claim it's not a rule, and it'd be difficult to claim that wasn't a game. If the DM says, "I'll make up a story hook and then you continue on with the story in any direction you want, with no limit," that's a rule, too. And if there's role-playing involved, that's an RPG. It may indeed be impossible to have an RPG without rules (if only because we are a species that creates rules as naturally as breathing), but it seems like that's not really what's at issue here. In the context of the ongoing conversation, the question is whether a character needs to be assigned numerical traits (or pips, or an element that can always be beaten by another element) in order to exist within the game.If the game (any game) is defined by its rules, then it's axiomatic that only those things covered in some way by some sort of rules will exist within the game proper. This is an article of faith; we may choose to believe that a game is defined solely by its rules, and if so then the rest of the statement follows from that. It's inarguable that the rules are what give a game definition, but that's not the same thing as the rules being the sole definers of what is and what is not part of the game. I would actually argue that considering only the rule skeleton to be part of the game is a myopic way of looking at things. It's like arguing that because a sandwich is defined by two slices of bread, the fillings are not part of the sandwich.I would instead suggest that although rules give definition to the game, the entire experience of game play is equally part of the whole, and it cannot be divided as neatly into elements that are part of the game and elements that are not.</blockquote>

Verification