Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8637786" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>In the case of a voluntary activity like a game, there is some doubt that it is possible for everyone to be cheating all of the time: if no one <em>ever</em> actually conforms to the rule and affirms that doing so is what the rule requires, it must be in doubt that the rule exists. I think this is probably enough to get EzekielRaiden's distinction between a rule and a mere suggestion off the ground.</p><p></p><p>(There are similar issues in the case of mandatory rules, like duty-imposing laws, but they are more complicated because of the institutional structures involved in establishing the mandate, which can also separate the existence of the rule from its being exhibited via behaviour.)</p><p></p><p>As far as the relationship between rules and "fun", I would strongly suggest considering Rawls's famous paper "Two concepts of rules".</p><p></p><p>The point of promising, roughly, is to secure among human beings the benefits of cooperation grounded in reliability. Promising, as a practice, secures that benefit by allowing someone, here-and-now, to oblige themselves to do something for another person in the future.</p><p></p><p>Once someone has made a promise, they are bound to keep it. The obligation can be defeated, but it is not relevant to the existence or the defeat of the obligation <em>that breaking the promise might better secure the benefits of cooperation grounded in reliability</em>. That is to say, the <em>purpose</em> of the institution does not figure within the permissible moves of the institution.</p><p></p><p>The same things applies in ball sports: the referee can't confer an extra goal on one side just because they think that will make the match more even, or more exciting, and hence better at achieving the goal of ball sports as a practice.</p><p></p><p>And the same thing applies at least to gamist RPGing as [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] has described it. We are engaged in "stepping on up". We do that for fun; but no one can appeal to "fun" as a basis for changing the nature of the "arena' here and now in the middle of the challenge. If I'm playing Moldvay Basic, and I have to roll a save vs poison for my PC, I'll probably have more fun if I make the save than if I fail it: having a character die is disappointing, and rolling up a new one is a chore. That doesn't give anyone a reason to fudge or ignore the die roll!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8637786, member: 42582"] In the case of a voluntary activity like a game, there is some doubt that it is possible for everyone to be cheating all of the time: if no one [i]ever[/i] actually conforms to the rule and affirms that doing so is what the rule requires, it must be in doubt that the rule exists. I think this is probably enough to get EzekielRaiden's distinction between a rule and a mere suggestion off the ground. (There are similar issues in the case of mandatory rules, like duty-imposing laws, but they are more complicated because of the institutional structures involved in establishing the mandate, which can also separate the existence of the rule from its being exhibited via behaviour.) As far as the relationship between rules and "fun", I would strongly suggest considering Rawls's famous paper "Two concepts of rules". The point of promising, roughly, is to secure among human beings the benefits of cooperation grounded in reliability. Promising, as a practice, secures that benefit by allowing someone, here-and-now, to oblige themselves to do something for another person in the future. Once someone has made a promise, they are bound to keep it. The obligation can be defeated, but it is not relevant to the existence or the defeat of the obligation [i]that breaking the promise might better secure the benefits of cooperation grounded in reliability[/i]. That is to say, the [i]purpose[/i] of the institution does not figure within the permissible moves of the institution. The same things applies in ball sports: the referee can't confer an extra goal on one side just because they think that will make the match more even, or more exciting, and hence better at achieving the goal of ball sports as a practice. And the same thing applies at least to gamist RPGing as [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] has described it. We are engaged in "stepping on up". We do that for fun; but no one can appeal to "fun" as a basis for changing the nature of the "arena' here and now in the middle of the challenge. If I'm playing Moldvay Basic, and I have to roll a save vs poison for my PC, I'll probably have more fun if I make the save than if I fail it: having a character die is disappointing, and rolling up a new one is a chore. That doesn't give anyone a reason to fudge or ignore the die roll! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top