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="clearstream" data-source="post: 8643346" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>I go a bit further than that, I think. One might read a rule like Rule 0 and think something like this</p><p></p><p>"<em>Aha! I grasp that rule, and I see its consequences, and thus if another upholds it I will be able speak to that with accuracy.</em>"</p><p></p><p>That runs into a conflict when one is using that grasping to make arguments as to the <em>undesirability </em>of following that rule. One may come to think something like this</p><p></p><p>"<em>Why are these fools following Rule 0, when it is so patently unappealing?!</em>"</p><p></p><p>Do those fools understand Rule 0 to be <em>unappealing </em>but follow it anyway!? Or do they follow it out of plain ignorance of its consequences? Perhaps they find the unappealing, appealing in some way - a matter of taste? All of these are possible, but they are also problematic. They skirt reliance on a challengeable assumption that one's own position is one of holding the high-ground (hence I call them "<em>fools</em>" so that we are clear what ignorant persons of questionable taste they must be.)</p><p></p><p>Alternatively, their grasping of the rule - and this is what I believe [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] and I have been essentially saying - is one that has <em>appealing</em> consequences. The choice of following and the manner of following (the rule that is followed) are not neatly divided. [This is a narrow claim, specific to game rules.]</p><p></p><p>Those fools are grasping and upholding an <em>appealing</em> version of Rule 0 that is <u>not identical</u> to the <em>unappealing</em> version grasped and upheld by those up there on the high ground. (Note that there is no reason to suppose those fools are insensitive to possibilities such as accepting that the sting of loss adds pleasure to future victories: they need not be unsophisticated fools.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>EDIT Just to note that I wrote that way in attempted humour, and not mockingly. I hoped to get some ideas across, but with some levity. Less heavily and sternly in opposition. More to build upon.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Wtih that all in mind, would you say that a group that chooses to <strong>not</strong> accept/enact Rule 0 for themselves (which is more common in neo-trad 5th edition play) therefore evades these problems? Or at least, is not committed to them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8643346, member: 71699"] I go a bit further than that, I think. One might read a rule like Rule 0 and think something like this "[I]Aha! I grasp that rule, and I see its consequences, and thus if another upholds it I will be able speak to that with accuracy.[/I]" That runs into a conflict when one is using that grasping to make arguments as to the [I]undesirability [/I]of following that rule. One may come to think something like this "[I]Why are these fools following Rule 0, when it is so patently unappealing?![/I]" Do those fools understand Rule 0 to be [I]unappealing [/I]but follow it anyway!? Or do they follow it out of plain ignorance of its consequences? Perhaps they find the unappealing, appealing in some way - a matter of taste? All of these are possible, but they are also problematic. They skirt reliance on a challengeable assumption that one's own position is one of holding the high-ground (hence I call them "[I]fools[/I]" so that we are clear what ignorant persons of questionable taste they must be.) Alternatively, their grasping of the rule - and this is what I believe [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] and I have been essentially saying - is one that has [I]appealing[/I] consequences. The choice of following and the manner of following (the rule that is followed) are not neatly divided. [This is a narrow claim, specific to game rules.] Those fools are grasping and upholding an [I]appealing[/I] version of Rule 0 that is [U]not identical[/U] to the [I]unappealing[/I] version grasped and upheld by those up there on the high ground. (Note that there is no reason to suppose those fools are insensitive to possibilities such as accepting that the sting of loss adds pleasure to future victories: they need not be unsophisticated fools.) EDIT Just to note that I wrote that way in attempted humour, and not mockingly. I hoped to get some ideas across, but with some levity. Less heavily and sternly in opposition. More to build upon. Wtih that all in mind, would you say that a group that chooses to [B]not[/B] accept/enact Rule 0 for themselves (which is more common in neo-trad 5th edition play) therefore evades these problems? Or at least, is not committed to them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top