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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LurkAway" data-source="post: 5744136" data-attributes="member: 6685059">I think the essential question could be reframed like so...Which of the following is true:1) a rule describes what can/will happen in-game (regardless of context)2) a rule describes what is likely to happen in-game (in an average context)With boardgames, it's always #1. It's simple, clear, and predictable. You don't ask for human adjudication to account for context. Barring rule exceptions and houserules, the rule as an abstraction becomes more "real" than what it was originally imagined to model, even if the abstraction is a gross simplification.With rpgs, it's often #1 (definitely with tactical play and rules lawyers) but others often prefer #2 and view the rules as a guideline. It also varies depending on the rule, of course.Monte gave the example of a rule that: open door = move action. Let's say that there's a heavy stone door and the DM wants that it takes a full round to open.If the group subscribes to view #1, then the DM needs to break the rule at the risk of arguments ("Yeah, yeah, I know the rule says 1 move action to open a door, but in this case, I rule that it takes 1 round"), or the system needs an extra rule at the risk of increased complexity ("exception: stone doors take a full round to open").However, if the group subscribes to view #2, then there is no need to break the rule or add an extra rule. The average door is likely to take 1 move action to open, but this heavy stone door is not average. The important thing is to try to be consistent -- that's why I would consider this to the mature/advanced version of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification