Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8176418" data-attributes="member: 7023840">I agree with this statement, but I'd expand it to include what [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] was saying.Systems that are more generic (abstract) or rely on frameworks and guidelines (as opposed to "rules") don't rely on a "Rule 0" because the concept of a Rule 0 is baked into the system. "Rule 0" is the social adjudication (by the GM, by the players, or by both) of issues that arise from applying the framework and guidelines to particular situations. I think of this as the common sense conundrum. To use the two lance example provided above-Some systems (like D&D or even more rules-heavy systems) would adjudicate this by examining specific rules with regard to initiative, and dual-wielding, and possibly even more specific rules regarding use of two lances while mounted.Other systems would just have the DM and player make determinations (as illustrated by loverdrive) as to what effects this would have with generic game terms (soft move, hard move, golden opportunity) and explain this in terms of the fiction.Here's the thing, though; have you read many threads on enworld? Maybe one involving the divide between crunch and lore? Or players asking about the way a rule is phrased? Possibly the effect of a silence spell on bats? Or, heck, players who want their druids  to wear metal armor and are worried they might explode? Maybe someone wondering about swimming in plate? What you run into is the common sense conundrum. People don't always agree on what constitutes "common sense." That's why more codified rule systems tend to have an advantage for some types of tables - disputes can be handled through an objective rule. On the other hand, abstract rules or ones that rely on guidelines require that there is significant table buy-in and avoidance of the common sense conundrum. To use the example above, as absurd as it might seem, the GM and the players are in general agreement about the effect of dual-wielding lances on horseback (it would be bad). In a rules-heavy game, this would be explicit and known within the rules. In a guidelines game, however, this would be up to the instant social adjudication; arguably, it is resolved easily (the GM is not preventing the player), but it still requires that the table is in general agreement that, for example, the GM should burden the player in any way for that choice. It might seem like common sense, but people often disagree on that.In short, the common sense conundrum (as I refer to it) tends to lurk at the edge of these debates; there needs to be significant table buy-in about the shared fiction and the effects that does not need to refer to an agreed-upon referent for guidelines and frameworks to work.</blockquote>

Verification