Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8643937" data-attributes="member: 71699">Here we're still at cross-purposes, so I'll try to explain another way. Let's call a rule as written R and a rule as applied Z. That's a distinction seen in abundance on enworld and we've terms like RAW and RAI as a result.In the example immediately above, so far as I can make out, you have two folks with two different Rs. In the example at top, you have an R with a singular Z (which can then be assessed). Neither of these cases are the same as what I am discussing.The case I am raising is that of an R with multiple Zs. What a rule is judged to be - its virtues - rely on Z. Up thread we discussed that rule following is done in view of social contracts and what it will regulate or constitute (grasped in the first instance through prospective play.) That is not a one-and-done deal: folk can change their mind on the desirability of a rule or even on what the Z is for that R.As we are discussing separate Zs for an R, some kinds of conclusions we make about that R are actually conclusions about the Z we have in mind for that R. Pointing to a confound between following an R and our Z for that R.Here I might well have misunderstood you and other posters. I have read words like "GM-fiat" and "force", used in a way that seemed to imply a shortfall. Perhaps that is not what you intend, but I have something else in mind, too.So far as I can make out from the arguments, GM-fiat and force are thought to apply to some RPGs and not others. Based on the way those concepts are described, it seems to me like the application of GM-fiat and force is "unappealing" and the alternative is "appealing".When a colleague MCs Monster of the Week or I GM Torchbearer 2, there are many points where we make decisions and author fiction. A player fails an ability test. I decide whether to introduce a twist, or that they accomplish the task but receive a condition. If I introduce a twist, I author that twist. In all cases, I aim to say what follows (from fiction, description, system.)Saying what follows is what I also adhere to for 5th edition. [This is a narrow claim: it does not say the games are identical.] I'm told 5e uses GM-fiat (and possibly force) and Rule 0. And I am told that those forestall things that I count "appealing". Yet I don't experience that forestalling. I seem able to have those appealing things anyway.Seeing as we are discussing a common R, I make the suggestion that our non-identical Zs account for differing apprehensions of that R. Under one apprehension, I see a version of 5e I would not like to play (unappealing). Under another apprehension, I see a version of 5e that appeals to me. (Appeal is a motivation for following that R... but it is the appeal of the Z.)</blockquote>

Verification