Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9021262" data-attributes="member: 71699">In some play modes, GM validation of player move declarations is either or both of a) ensuring the lusory-means are upheld, and b) supplying lusory-means (the &quot;inefficient means&quot; or &quot;unnecessary obstacle&quot; of GM arbitration between player declaration and result.)For me the above doesn't make play incorporating a) or b) any less or more preferable, nor do I think the bare fact of those schemas tells the whole story. Prelusory-goals, principles and rules, will all have something to say*.*As [USER=7039850]@Enrahim2[/USER]'s affairs of state analogy up-thread implied, principles and rules (and probably prelusory-goals) need not all have the same weight. Participants can and do put them in force for themselves in categorically different strengths. In a recent thread asking whether folk treat rules as laws or as guidelines, many posters took the question as one about how strongly they put game rules in force for themselves. A poster commented that &quot;I think it varies depending on the system and the specific rule in question. I think that with certain rules, consistent application is what’s best. Character abilities, powers, feats, and the like fit into this category&quot; and it was noted that &quot;There's no single answer because different rules serve different purposes.&quot; The characterisation &quot;foundational rules&quot; was used to contrast with other rules... those more readily modified. I acknowledge elision of such further qualities of these goals, principles and rules, in case that should come to matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9021262, member: 71699"] In some play modes, GM validation of player move declarations is either or both of a) ensuring the lusory-means are upheld, and b) supplying lusory-means (the "inefficient means" or "unnecessary obstacle" of GM arbitration between player declaration and result.) For me the above doesn't make play incorporating a) or b) any less or more preferable, nor do I think the bare fact of those schemas tells the whole story. Prelusory-goals, principles and rules, will all have something to say*. *As [USER=7039850]@Enrahim2[/USER]'s affairs of state analogy up-thread implied, principles and rules (and probably prelusory-goals) need not all have the same weight. Participants can and do put them in force for themselves in categorically different strengths. In a recent thread asking whether folk treat rules as laws or as guidelines, many posters took the question as one about how strongly they put game rules in force for themselves. A poster commented that "I think it varies depending on the system and the specific rule in question. I think that with certain rules, consistent application is what’s best. Character abilities, powers, feats, and the like fit into this category" and it was noted that "There's no single answer because different rules serve different purposes." The characterisation "foundational rules" was used to contrast with other rules... those more readily modified. I acknowledge elision of such further qualities of these goals, principles and rules, in case that should come to matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification