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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8641985" data-attributes="member: 42582">Normally, in theorising about rules and other normative phenomena, we distinguish is binding from is followed. That's why it is possible to break a rule. Whereas if not followed entailed is not binding then it would follow that no rule can be broken.As I posted upthread, it may be - in the context of leisure activities like games - that some degree of compliance is necessary to make it true that a rule exists at all. But that degree of compliance is not 100%.As to why people follow rules, the range of possible answers is as varied as the details of human psychology: fear; a sense of duty; habit; a desire to get the benefits of following the rule; a desire to go along with everyone else who is following the rule; not knowing any better; etc. In the case of games, a desire to participate, with others, in the activity that the rules underpin must be one common explanation for conformity to rules.I think it's widely accepted that Carroll didn't really think that inference is impossible. Rather, his point is that rules of inference do not themselves constitute premises in the argument. Frege made a similar observation, I think.Hart makes a comparable point in the context of legal rules - ie there must be a rule which grounds the system that is not part of the system. (He called it the rule of recognition.)I find this hard to follow. But you seem to be positing that because adherence to rule X is motivated by reason Z, it is therefore permissible, or even desirable, to suspend or override rule X whenever someone believes that doing so will better advance reason Z.The claim I have just stated - which, as I've said, is the best sense I've been able to make of what you're saying - is highly controversial.First, there's the issue of whose belief.Second, there are issues of timelines. Few people enjoy losing in the immediate moment of loss - does that mean that we may, or should, suspend the rules that dictate that they have lost, and the consequences of their loss? Question of fairness, the significance of pre-commitment, etc all become relevant here.A further thing that is relevant, and that feeds into a third way in which the claim above is controversial, is that it often very far from clear that permitting the purposes for which a system of rules exists to be a relevant consideration within the system of rules is the best way to achieve those purposes. To repost:Rule zero is not an uncontroversial, natural, or inevitable reflection of the fact that rules only take effect by being taken up (in some fashion) by those whom they govern. It is a particular authority structure in respect of the shared fiction of a roleplaying game. There are other candidate authority structures - one can see them in games that are otherwise as different as (say) Fate, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP and Agon 2nd ed.So "fiat" in this context is being used to mean an exercise of power, not an arbitrary exercise of power. [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] has explained how it need not be arbitrary, and may even be very disciplined. That doesn't stop it being fiat.Look at Vincent Baker's example of the fight to try and get to the departing ship on time. The player (via the play of their PCs) wins the fight - their PC "kicks the other guys butt". But does the player get to the ship? In Classic Traveller, 5e D&D, Rolemaster and CoC - just to point to a few example systems - that question is answered by a GM decision. The decision may be made in various ways, and typically may have regard to the PC having kicked the other guy's butt, but the GM makes the decision.Now consider a 4e skill challenge, where the stated goal is to get to the ship before it departs. Winning the fight will count as a success in the challenge. So the connection between winning the fight and getting to the ship before it departs is not hostage to GM decision-making.Or consider Marvel Heroic RP. There would be a Scene Distinction - The Ship is About to Depart or Get to the Ship! - with an initial rating (from D6 to D12) set by the GM that reflects both the fiction and the drama. Actions declared by the players can, among other things, step down the Scene Distinction, and once it drops below D6 the ship is not departing without the PCs, or the PCs are on the ship. Conversely, if the scene ends with the Distinction still in play then the ship got away! In this case, the presence of an opponent who needs to be fought will introduce extra complications into the scene, making it harder to step down the Distinction. Again, whatever the precise details, the player's intention in fighting - ie so that they can get to the ship - will be reflected in determining whether or not winning the fight lets them get to the ship.Or consider Burning Wheel. I run to the ship, cutting down whoever gets in my way! There are various ways that can be resolved - the simplest might be PC Speed (I run) vs NPC Pilot (the ship is departing), perhaps with the PC FoRKing in Sword (I cut down whoever gets in my way) and the NPC being helped by Seamanship or Rigging from the crew. It could be more complex - eg maybe the fight is resolved via Bloody Versus, or even Fight!, with success counting as a linked test to the Speed test. (These different choices about how to frame it are driven by concerns of theme and pacing, not concerns about how to best "model" the ingame fiction.) Whatever the details, the player's intention in fighting - ie to make it to the ship in time - will be reflected in determining whether or not winning the fight lets them get to the ship.These contrasts between systems illustrate the difference that [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER], and John Harper's diagrams, are speaking to.What is the force of the sometimes. If the GM announces in advance, then the framework is similar to a test in BW. (Sometimes checks in RM resolve a scene, because that is how the chart for that particular skill or activity is set out.)But that is not the norm in 5e. My evidence for the preceding sentence is (i) how the rules present the function of checks, and (ii) how they are presented in published adventures, and (iii) how I see them discussed among 5e players on these boards.</blockquote>

Verification