Doug McCrae said:
Are you sure they're not the rules of the game rather than the rules of the universe?
Doug,
Positive. The fictitious universe is one in which the rules of the game determine what is, and is not, possible.
For example, Fanboy2000 said:
Just last night I had an NPC getting hit by a plasma rifle and I described his state (as he was really low on hp) as having wounds that expose bone. there are no rules for that, but he was dead anyways. (It was either be killed by the PC, or be killed buy his employer, he chose to go down fighting.) I don't actually want rules for that situation, as it would just drag down combat. I'm quite happy winging it.
He is correct in stating that there are no rules that determine how he describes specific situations, however his description (wounds exposing bone) is specifically intended to convey a game rules state (really low on hp), amply demonstrating that his belief that "there are no rules for that" is a false one. In a real-world analogy, his description is art, the rules situation that underlies it is physics. One is "subjective," the other "objective."
You said:
"From time to time the GM of games I'm in changes the rules. For instance our GM ruled you couldn't trip with an attack of opportunity. At no point did I feel the rules of the universe had changed, merely the rules of the game.
Once one accepts that the game rules only very imperfectly model the universe in which the game takes place, and need the occasional helping hand in the interests of plausibility, this makes sense."
First off, I hope you can concede that there is a difference between the perspective of the player, and the fictional perspective of the character which that player controls. From the player's perspective, the rules of the game have changed. No one is suggesting that real-world physics change because of this. However, from the fictional perspective of the PC, he is no longer able to do something he was able to do yesterday. That is, fundamentally, a shift in the way the world works. This would be true whether or not the change was actually "noticed" by anyone in that setting.
Also, I hope you are aware that real-world physics themselves are only a model by which the real universe can be understood. And, as you say, a very imperfect model at that. This actually strengthens the relationship between game rules and physics.
You also said:
"After all only one particular set of bones could fit with one 'lump' of meat. But many, many different worlds could use the same rules. One could have a civilisation of orcs, or a land of islands floating in the air, or a desert world and so on, all using the same DnD rules.
'Meat/bones' also suggests that the former will be more plentiful than the latter. Of course in most recent WotC books, the opposite has been the case."
Whether you realize it or not, the bones (i.e. game rules) selected for a setting alter and form the meat which gives the setting its flavor. For example, the D&D rules have always promoted a setting in which most problems are solved either by combat or by endurance (hp, spell, and equipment attrition). There are a number of excellent threads on EnWorld devoted to deconstructing exactly what the rules (bones) of D&D 3.X imply for the meat.
Not so different from paleontology.
Your assertation that all D&D games use the same ruleset regardless of setting is, btw, patently false. The SRD provides a core set of rules, not all of which apply to any given setting, and some of which are intentionally designated optional. To this base matter, the world-building DM (or setting builder) adds setting rules. The world-building DM may also eliminate rules that do not fit in the setting. Additional rules include the presence (or absence) of races, classes, prestige classes, feats, spells, and skills, as well as unique applications of some or all. The rules of a setting include some concept of planar metaphysics, distribution of racial types and classes, distrbution of creatures (encounter charts and general frequency of various monster types, whether or not the average creature is an advanced type, and so on), and so on.
One might easily argue that "Rule 0" could essentially be rewritten to read "The DM will change the rules to suit the campaign."
A world with a civilisation of orcs changes the general alignment of orcs to suit its concept. A land of islands floating in the air surely requires some rules (formalized or not) for how they float there, how (if in any way) they can be made to cease floating, and what is below them. A desert world dispenses with some rules, emphasizes others, and includes rules for unique hazardous terrain types/weather patterns -- PCs might not be allowed to select Swim as a class skill, for example.
Small changes to the rules provide small differences in campaign worlds. All humans have, essentially, the same bone structure. As a result, it is easy for us to identify a human. That does not mean that our bone structure is exactly alike.
When you said:
I see the advantages of 'fluff/crunch' to be as follows:
1. It's the accepted terminology.
2. It denigrates fluff at the expense of crunch. Yes, I see this as being an advantage.
3. The terms are both very short, thus easy to say/type.
you were at least being very honest. If you see number 2, above, as an advantage, then you are unlikely to be swayed by any argument, rational or not, that removes that "advantage." On the other hand, your statement makes clear that you understand that the term
is derogatory, which is a start.
Didn't this thread purport to determine if the fluff/crunch terminology was offensive?
Now we can say without doubt that (1) a significant minority of people are offended, and (2) at least some people
intend the term to be offensive.
RC
