Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7473626" data-attributes="member: 42582">Because they're among the more complex of the rules for chess, and hence when you're teaching children you build up the complexity. (That seems very obvious, and so maybe not what you were asking for? Sorry if I've missed your point.)I've also played with adults who described themsevels as knowing how to play chess, but weren't familiar with those rules, because their grasp of the game never really got beyond that childhood level.But I don't see what it adds to our metaphysical understanding of the universe to insist that such people are actually not playing chess, but rather chess variant X. Attempting to individuate games at that level of specificity goes contrary to ordinary usage, and seems to have little payoff in return.And in the context of Mearls' quote, I don't think it is at all what he was pointing to. In saying that RPG rules are not prescriptive, I don't think he's pointing to the existence of option, which other games have, nor guidelines,which other games - epsecially waragmes - also have. (I thnk much of the stuff about guidelines and the like that  [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is pointing to as distinctive of D&D as an RPG can be found in the Chainmail rules, and those are wargame rules, not RPG rules.)I think what Mearls is pointing to, or trying to, is something about the interaction between (i) action resolution, (ii) the use of mechanical devices to establish or convey the nature of fictional elements, and (iii) the shared fiction. This is what most of those who replied to his tweet seemed to pick up on, based on my quick skim through them; and it would make sense, as the interaction between mechanics and fiction is part of what is fundamental to a RPG. (PCs as playing pieces is the other principal thing.)But I'm having trouble working out exactly what he had in mind in part because I think that, whatever it is, the prescription/description distinction won't be very apt for trying to capture it.Another possibility that just occurred to me is that he may mean that RPGs establish rules to govern moves, but don't tell the participants what the goal of making those moves is. (Contrast, say, chess, which sets a goal - defend your king and secure checkmate; or bridge, where the goal is to bid your hand well and then win tricks.)As it happens I also disagree with that - eg I think the rulesets for D&D do set goals for the game participants (for instance, as per the quotes from Gygax's RPG I posted upthread). But I think my view on that matter is a minority one - there does seem to be a widespread view that you can take a RPG mechanical ruleset and apply it in pursuit of whatever play goal you want.I guess there are also some chess players who don't really play to win but just move the pieces around the board, occasionally making captures, in order to "see what happens - but I think they would almost uniformally be judged poor chess players, whereas in the RPG case the failure to connect resolution methods to play goals is not treated - at least by a good number of RPGers - as a marker of bad play.EDIT: I went back to the Basic PDF to see if it sets out goals of play, and found this on p 2:The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. . . . Unlike a game of make-believe, D&D gives structure to the stories, a way of determining the consequences of the adventurers’ action. . . . There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game - at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.This actually does seem to prescribe a goal of pay (have a good time by creating a memorable fantasy story), and also suggests a prescriptive role for the rest of the rules (the give structure to the stories we are trying to have a good time creating). But I wouldn't be surprised - given traditional ways of making sense of RPG rulebooks - if Mearls in his tweet is regarding this as essentially fluff or padding rather than a genuine statement of the goals of the game.</blockquote>

Verification