Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7348488" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, here's my attempt at a cogent response. First I would note that D&D (as an example) never calls out what the fiction proscribes, or what it prescribes, except specifically where it intersects a mechanic (I will use 1e as my example if it matters since I'm most familiar with it). So, for example the rules state that every 10' a character falls deals 1d6 damage. Likewise when your hit points reach 0, you die (or at least go unconscious, rules are flexible!). I'd note that SOMETIMES, always in the DMG in a place separate from the rule itself, Gygax tries to describe what, fictionally, would best be represented by certain game constructs. So he talks about what sort of walls a thief could climb, and even suggests rules adjustments for them. Now, you might take all this to indicate 'rules describe how the world behaves', but note that these descriptions are ONLY in terms of how things affect characters, their possessions, and other elements that are part of the direct fiction. The only time this gets blurry is for high level PCs who have class features which are narrative in nature (IE strongholds, where he talks about taxation systems and such, but they are only rules BECAUSE they intersect with character class features). In other places things are specifically called out as 'guidelines' or recommendations, or just procedures which can be used in the course of play, like random generators.So, I maintain that the rules of the game are about the GAME, and not about regulating the fiction. This is underlined by the way 1e, again and again, calls them all 'guidelines' and specifically instructs the DM to use any means he finds suitable to adjudicate the game.In terms of the narrative 'being' rules... I don't think it is. I think the narrative is intended to be coherent. You are supposed to be able to hear it, or read it, or experience it as a player, and be able to construct a mental image of the action, much like you would construct a mental image of Moria when you read the chapter of Fellowship of the Ring where they enter Kazhad Dum etc. The players, presumably in some sort of consensus, are free to decide HOW, or even IF the narrative, the fictional positioning, binds them. This isn't a matter of rules, specifically. There's no rule in D&D that gravity exists. There's a convention, and a falling damage rule accompanies that convention, but there's no rule! In fact, if the players are in the Ethereal Plane, then falling doesn't happen at all. Presumably they're free to make up other such locales, and a whole game could hypothetically take place in such a locale. So, I think there are CONVENTIONS, what we often call 'genre assumptions' or 'tropes', and even just 'common sense assumptions' (IE gravity) which we assume and use because they are convenient, yet they only take on binding force by consensus in play. A game designer is free to establish some of these are rules, thus staking his game's claim to a certain territory, but it would be impossible for games to actually try to spell them all out. MOST of what we play is what we decide to play, not what is in the book. 'Causality' is simply a convention we may use, or even more likely, just a lampshade we hang on certain plot devices.</blockquote>

Verification