Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8639860" data-attributes="member: 7026617">The problem with this is that's a good part of the use of Rule 0 I've made over the past 40 years.&nbsp; The rest have been rules-peripheral cases where there simply were no mechanics that seemed to address the issue at all, or the most analogous ones seemed to produce obvious problems on multiple levels.&nbsp; The only other thing I can think of that lands in &quot;Rule 0&quot; ground is house rules, and those are even less likely to break gamist concerns as long as they're shared with the player group at earliest possible occasion.Can you give an example of what you're referring to?&nbsp; I'm beginning to wonder if you (and possibly some of the others) are using &quot;Rule 0&quot; in a much broader way than I've classically seen it used.All generally fair, though I again I think you're seeing the process as, of necessity, much tighter than I do.&nbsp; There's enough slop in most mental models on either end that a lot of things will, at worst add in a little wobble that people expect anyway.&nbsp; It doesn't significantly deflect their ability to engage with the situation in a gamist fashion, because, well, we're not playing chess.I won't deny there can be some tension in those areas.&nbsp; But I'd argue when that tension reaches the point where transparency regarding anything that will significantly (and this is not a trivial qualification; see my comment above) impact the necessary information to make a proper ongoing gamist decision set is being kept to the vest, that's because the gamist agenda isn't being given any high preference in the first place.&nbsp; As I've noted, there are people who consider the term &quot;gamist decision&quot; an epithet (I saw someone bluntly say so in a thread not long ago), so at that point its no surprise that its not being done in a way that serves gamist desires; the people involved either consider that trivial, or that gamist desires can go hang.Whereas to me, it seems like the primary purpose of Rule 0.Well, the ideal is, of course, for this to be handled with houserule work outside game play time, but, well, sometimes you notice the air coming out of the tire while you're checking them and sometimes you figure it out on the road.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8639860, member: 7026617"] The problem with this is that's a good part of the use of Rule 0 I've made over the past 40 years. The rest have been rules-peripheral cases where there simply were no mechanics that seemed to address the issue at all, or the most analogous ones seemed to produce obvious problems on multiple levels. The only other thing I can think of that lands in "Rule 0" ground is house rules, and those are even [I]less[/I] likely to break gamist concerns as long as they're shared with the player group at earliest possible occasion. Can you give an example of what you're referring to? I'm beginning to wonder if you (and possibly some of the others) are using "Rule 0" in a much broader way than I've classically seen it used. All generally fair, though I again I think you're seeing the process as, of necessity, much tighter than I do. There's enough slop in most mental models on either end that a lot of things will, at worst add in a little wobble that people expect anyway. It doesn't significantly deflect their ability to engage with the situation in a gamist fashion, because, well, we're not playing chess. I won't deny there can be some tension in those areas. But I'd argue when that tension reaches the point where transparency regarding anything that will significantly (and this is not a trivial qualification; see my comment above) impact the necessary information to make a proper ongoing gamist decision set is being kept to the vest, that's because the gamist agenda isn't being given any high preference in the first place. As I've noted, there are people who consider the term "gamist decision" an epithet (I saw someone bluntly say so in a thread not long ago), so at that point its no surprise that its not being done in a way that serves gamist desires; the people involved either consider that trivial, or that gamist desires can go hang. Whereas to me, it seems like the primary purpose of Rule 0. Well, the ideal is, of course, for this to be handled with houserule work outside game play time, but, well, sometimes you notice the air coming out of the tire while you're checking them and sometimes you figure it out on the road. [/QUOTE]

Verification