Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 9016888" data-attributes="member: 7039850">I just wanted to point out that you might not even wait for future game designs to find a counter example. The mode in which I have played the card game Mao involve explicit rule making power as a clear part of the lusory fabric.Without going into the details, the idea is that there is a &quot;base game&quot; where if you reach the &quot;win&quot; condition, your price is to reenter the game, having established a new rule (unknown to the other players). You then have to referee this rule, as noone else know it. There are no formal limits on the rules that can be established this way, but there are obvious practical and social limitations that informs what rules make sense. A large part of what make the game fun is to figure out these rules made by the other players as part of the gameplay, and I hence consider it quite obvious that this rule changing is a clear part of the lusory fabric.I think this could be a perspective that could be good to have in mind when trying to determine if rule changing powers are part of the original D&amp;D lusory fabric. I would claim that it indeed is, and would put it as a point 3d. It is not part of the DMs role as referee, but it is something they are allowed to wield in function of being a player in the game. Just as in Mao it is constrained by social acceptability, and just as i Mao the player has to referee it themselves (at least until some other player fully catches on).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 9016888, member: 7039850"] I just wanted to point out that you might not even wait for future game designs to find a counter example. The mode in which I have played the card game Mao involve explicit rule making power as a clear part of the lusory fabric. Without going into the details, the idea is that there is a "base game" where if you reach the "win" condition, your price is to reenter the game, having established a new rule (unknown to the other players). You then have to referee this rule, as noone else know it. There are no formal limits on the rules that can be established this way, but there are obvious practical and social limitations that informs what rules make sense. A large part of what make the game fun is to figure out these rules made by the other players as part of the gameplay, and I hence consider it quite obvious that this rule changing is a clear part of the lusory fabric. I think this could be a perspective that could be good to have in mind when trying to determine if rule changing powers are part of the original D&D lusory fabric. I would claim that it indeed is, and would put it as a point 3d. It is not part of the DMs role as referee, but it is something they are allowed to wield in function of being a player in the game. Just as in Mao it is constrained by social acceptability, and just as i Mao the player has to referee it themselves (at least until some other player fully catches on). [/QUOTE]

Verification