Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9011862" data-attributes="member: 6690965">To be perfectly clear, I don't think the &quot;incompleteness&quot; of TTRPG design is good or interesting, it's just a product of the magnitude of the task. I think making specific reference to rule 0 in a design is at best a mistake, and more likely the designer either knowingly providing a pointedly incomplete product or making a political appeal to a specific audience.Rhetorically, I find rule 0 and associated discourse corrosive because it devalues TTRPGs as completely designed products and encourages GMs to conflate rule creation and adjudication. That leads to low player agency environments, as it encourages a preference for specific outcomes over specific functions. That's how you get unknowable board states and players declaring actions without the ability to know their costs/chances.Worse, it's a self perpetuating cycle. Rule 0 not only doesn't excuse lazy designs, it encourages them, both by feeding an audience that feels hemmed in by complete rulesets, and excusing shortcomings in published rulesets. It would do more good as an unstated premise, as it exists in board games, than a cherished norm as it remains in TTRPGs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9011862, member: 6690965"] To be perfectly clear, I don't think the "incompleteness" of TTRPG design is good or interesting, it's just a product of the magnitude of the task. I think making specific reference to rule 0 in a design is at best a mistake, and more likely the designer either knowingly providing a pointedly incomplete product or making a political appeal to a specific audience. Rhetorically, I find rule 0 and associated discourse corrosive because it devalues TTRPGs as completely designed products and encourages GMs to conflate rule creation and adjudication. That leads to low player agency environments, as it encourages a preference for specific outcomes over specific functions. That's how you get unknowable board states and players declaring actions without the ability to know their costs/chances. Worse, it's a self perpetuating cycle. Rule 0 not only doesn't excuse lazy designs, it encourages them, both by feeding an audience that feels hemmed in by complete rulesets, and excusing shortcomings in published rulesets. It would do more good as an unstated premise, as it exists in board games, than a cherished norm as it remains in TTRPGs. [/QUOTE]

Verification