Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7473540" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the quote from Mearls was &quot;RPGs are distinct in tabletop gaming (and maybe in all of gaming) for being descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive, rules sets, and a lot of bad/misguided design comes from forgetting that.&quot;I've pointed to the fact that the rules sets do, in fact, contain clear prescriptions as to how to play the game. (Which is hardly surprising. Every other rulebook every published does that too.)The fact that they might also contain passages saying &quot;You're free to make up your own rules&quot; is neither here nor there. People have been making up variant games for as long as they've been making up games (eg my girls learn various silly chess variants at their chess club). But those don't suddenly turn the rulebooks from being prescriptive to descriptive. Descriptive of what? The only &quot;rules&quot; I know of that are descriptive are scientific laws, which (in some cases, at least) purport to describe actual realworld processes.But what are RPG rules supposed to be descriptive of? You become Falstaff the fighter isn't a description of something - it's an instruction of how to play the game. These rules are only guidelines, go nut if it works for you! isn't a description of anything either - it's the (unnecessary) granting of a permission. (Unnecessary because there is nothing to stop someone going nuts with a game they've bought, even if the permission is not expressly granted.) Granting a permission isn't describing anything - in fact it belongs to the same sort of speech act category as prescribing a method or giving an instruction! (Msy, must, ought, should - all are modal verbs.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7473540, member: 42582"] [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the quote from Mearls was "RPGs are distinct in tabletop gaming (and maybe in all of gaming) for being descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive, rules sets, and a lot of bad/misguided design comes from forgetting that." I've pointed to the fact that the rules sets do, in fact, contain clear prescriptions as to how to play the game. (Which is hardly surprising. Every other rulebook every published does that too.) The fact that they might also contain passages saying "You're free to make up your own rules" is neither here nor there. People have been making up variant games for as long as they've been making up games (eg my girls learn various silly chess variants at their chess club). But those don't suddenly turn the rulebooks from being [I]prescriptive[/I] to [I]descriptive[/I]. Descriptive of what? The only "rules" I know of that are [I]descriptive[/I] are scientific laws, which (in some cases, at least) purport to describe actual realworld processes. But what are RPG rules supposed to be descriptive of? [I]You become Falstaff the fighter[/I] isn't a description of something - it's an instruction of how to play the game. [I]These rules are only guidelines, go nut if it works for you![/I] isn't a description of anything either - it's the (unnecessary) granting of a permission. ([I]Unnecessary[/I] because there is nothing to stop someone going nuts with a game they've bought, even if the permission is not expressly granted.) Granting a permission isn't describing anything - in fact it belongs to the same sort of speech act category as prescribing a method or giving an instruction! ([I]Msy[/I], [I]must[/I], [I]ought[/I], [I]should[/I] - all are modal verbs.) [/QUOTE]

Verification