Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 2240005" data-attributes="member: 4937">Sure, but that isn't specific expectations about the rules in same way that expecting a magic missile to hit a target using a blink spell is a specific expectation.   Those are extremely general expectations about the game itself, that actually have very little to do with the rules.  None of your expectations are strong restrictions on the nature of the rules.  Let's imagine that we are playing a game which has 'Rule 0' as its only rule.   Even this game meets your general expectations:1) The rules exist.  They are really short, but they exist.2) The player still has a reasonable expectation to be treated fairly, but that expectation is seen now to have nothing really to do with the rules.3) The player assumes that the DM will not rule in a particular way without good reason, but again we see that that expectation really has nothing to do with the rules.I mean, if you've never seen the rules to an RPG before, how do you know that the game doesn't largely rest on 'rule 0'?  Could you really imagine the complex simulation systems of modern RPG's?   Would it really matter? All you've really said with your objection is that the implied social contract includes a reasonable expectation of fair treatment by the DM, but that's something we both completely agree on.</blockquote>