Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8644980" data-attributes="member: 71699">[USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] Perhaps it goes like this<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There can be a set of principles according to which GM-decisions are what I will call "constrained"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">That set of principles can be written into an RPG system, so that a GM who accepts/enacts the whole system, accepts/enacts those principles</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">In case of 2., I will call the system "opinionated"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The rules of an opinionated system are formed in expectation they will be enacted in accord with its principles, notwithstanding that it is possible to enact them in discord with its principles</li> </ol>For an opinionated system, the matter of what principles apply to it - how it ought be played - is settled in the system. The constraints can be known by grasping the system, and upheld by upholding the system (when correctly grasped.)A paradigmatically alternative system is like this<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">There can be sets of principles held by GMs, according to which the decisions of some are constrained and others not constrained</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The system is vague on which principles are to be enacted/accepted in its regard</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">In case of 2., I will call the system "vague"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The rules of a vague system are formed in expectation that they may be enacted according to diverse sets of principles, so that one must suspend judgement as to what would count as acting in accord or discord</li> </ol>For a vague system, the matter of what principles apply to it - how it ought be played - is settled in the GM. The constraints can't be known by grasping the system, they are known only in the way that the system is upheld (as grasped by each GM.)Lots of complicated thoughts, but perhaps this can help us see better where we are in agreement? In the case of a vague system, the presence or absence of constraints can't be settled by reference to that system. That prevents me simply agreeing with you when you point to 5e and say there are no constraints. It's the wrong target for that accusation: the question of constraints isn't settled in the system.For vague systems, we must ask each GM how they will make their decisions, and can only then judge on the matter of constraints. Where this will jar is folk will want to make normative claims. So it's important to be clear that my claim isn't a normative one. I can say that many or even most GMs normally hold some set of principles rather than some other set, without affecting my claim here. A reflex to translate my claim into a normative one could well cause difficulty in following it.</blockquote>

Verification