Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 9020469" data-attributes="member: 7039850">I think we agree. Comparing terminology in two completely diffrent paradigms are extremely hard. I agree that "social contract" appear to at least encompas lusory attitude according to my understanding as well. But my understanding of the term "social contract" do not only encompas the agreement to paricipate on the activity's terms, but also the (unwritten) agreed upon terms themselves. It is these (unwritten) terms I think might be corresponding to Suits' rules, while I think they are distinct from what we normally consider "rules" in an rpg setting.But I think maybe I can try to explain my perspective a step better by bringing in yet another paradigm. In afairs of state, there are a well established distinction between constitution, law and executive orders. In a democracy changing the constitution tend to be possible, but usually require giving the entire population a chance to voice their opinion trough referendum or election. However changing the laws can be done by a legislative branch without broader involvement by the rest of the population. These laws further can empower the executive branch to issue executive orders that further elaborates the laws.For most board games the rules correspond to the constitution. The rules can be changed, but that require common agreement. In my understanding this is what Suits is talking about when he refers to rules. Most games have only constitution, and no law on top (and no defined means in the constitution to add any laws beyond those found in the constitution). Turnament games might define a judical branch, in the shape of one or more referees, and the moves they define the players to allow to make might have some slight resemblance of defining an executive branch. However, anything resembling a legislative branch is exceedingly rare.And I think this is the thing that rule 0 does, that makes the water so murky. It at least on the surface grant legislative powers to the GM, and does so as part of the "constitution", as it is explicitely stated in the game text. This causes a situation where in these RPGs it suddenly make sense to distinguish between "constitution" (processes of play that can only be altered trough participant consensus), and other "rules", that can be changed unilaterally by the GM. In most states the constitution is miniscule compared to the total body of the law.I think Suits' analysis makes perfect sense if you read his "rules" as the legal "constitution". And for likely all the games within his intended scope of analysis this indeed covers all rules. However in terms of Rule 0, these are actually exactly describing the "rules" that is not subject to be changed - the exceptions to the rule. But I guess you would not hold it against anyone if they claim "lawmakers can change the laws" without every time adding "except the constitution" - that sort of go without saying? I think it is the same with "The GM can change the rules". It isnunderstood that this do not imply changing the social foundational assumptions for the shared activity, but rather the more arbitrary suggested structures buildt on top of those central assumptions.The questions about what in a game text is constitution, and what is legislation is of course a tricky question I don't think I have seen any rule 0 game try to properly clarify. But it is hard to talk about rule 0 without acknowledging that rule 0 implies there to be such a distinction.(I also hope this can help distinguish between the concept of establishing precedent trough ruling in cases where the written rules are unclear. This is a topic I see often are brought in when talking about rule 0, but I think actually is somewhat orthogonal. Filling in holes is a natural referee job, that can be done without rule 0. Rule 0 however allow for adding procedures beyond what would make sense for a referee, allowing the GM to do more active experience design)</blockquote>

Verification