Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ainamacar" data-source="post: 5803477" data-attributes="member: 70709">I see an explicit rule 0 as being the acknowledgment that all other rules are, at a deep level, imperfect but useful abstractions -- abstractions we hope are useful enough in the majority of cases to give a ballpark picture of the consistency of interaction and resolution.&nbsp; The reason to explicitly state it isn't so people realize the system is an imperfect abstraction (that much is obvious), but to give license or reminders to DMs who lack the awareness or confidence to actually exercise it.&nbsp; It serves a psychological purpose, albeit one that becomes less necessary with experience.&nbsp; (Imagine a psych experiment that tests how long a person in a closed room waiting for someone to arrive will just sit there before trying to leave.&nbsp; Every single person knows they could just walk out the door, and they'll definitely feel that &quot;the rule&quot; that they should wait is somehow outside what was surely intended.&nbsp; But if you don't prime them with the notion that they can leave, on average they'll wait longer.)Explicit mention is also a way for the designers to flag just how big a ballpark a given rule is intended to fit, or to flag rules where some modification will be the norm rather than the exception.&nbsp; In both cases this can reduce the burden on a DM that is trying to decide if some rule is actually adequate under the circumstances.&nbsp; For example, perhaps the falling rules are very light and primarily intended to address medium size creatures falling in earth-like atmosphere.&nbsp; Rather than write more rules that will be used infrequently, it could mention that the DM can adjust the damage for creatures with very large or very small cross-sections.&nbsp; Sure the DM may have done so eventually, but if that one little statement made it a little easier and faster then it served the game well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ainamacar, post: 5803477, member: 70709"] I see an explicit rule 0 as being the acknowledgment that all other rules are, at a deep level, imperfect but useful abstractions -- abstractions we hope are useful enough in the majority of cases to give a ballpark picture of the consistency of interaction and resolution. The [I]reason[/I] to explicitly state it isn't so people realize the system is an imperfect abstraction (that much is obvious), but to give license or reminders to DMs who lack the awareness or confidence to actually exercise it. It serves a psychological purpose, albeit one that becomes less necessary with experience. (Imagine a psych experiment that tests how long a person in a closed room waiting for someone to arrive will just sit there before trying to leave. Every single person knows they could just walk out the door, and they'll definitely feel that "the rule" that they should wait is somehow outside what was surely intended. But if you don't prime them with the notion that they can leave, on average they'll wait longer.) Explicit mention is also a way for the designers to flag just how big a ballpark a given rule is intended to fit, or to flag rules where some modification will be the norm rather than the exception. In both cases this can reduce the burden on a DM that is trying to decide if some rule is actually adequate under the circumstances. For example, perhaps the falling rules are very light and primarily intended to address medium size creatures falling in earth-like atmosphere. Rather than write more rules that will be used infrequently, it could mention that the DM can adjust the damage for creatures with very large or very small cross-sections. Sure the DM may have done so eventually, but if that one little statement made it a little easier and faster then it served the game well. [/QUOTE]

Verification