Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why do RPGs have rules?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9033140" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>Rereading your OP I retain the feeling that Baker takes an... I guess it could be called teleological approach. He has purposes in mind and he punts game rules like those that model the world that don't fit those purposes. I am aiming for a definition that will include such rules.</p><p></p><p>I'm thinking about bare cause and function. I'm not concerned with the social negotiation, only with what concretely happens when a rule is followed. That is why I shift tone: the first line lays out when we have cause to follow a rule. The rest lay out what following a rule amounts to.</p><p></p><p>Baker writes</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You summarised that</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I couldn't find anywhere in the account where it states exactly how that "shaping" takes place. The process, not the purpose. I felt that if one could state the process a bit more clearly, one might see how it could fit with a diversity of purposes.</p><p></p><p><strong>So far as pre-existing norms extend, participants can often agree that a description D will have the consequences C. </strong></p><p><em>Lapses here necessitate the rule so it's right to observe that this reflects the OP, although I call attention both to the possibility of non-agreement, and the possibility of lack of a norm. I can't see where the OP calls attention to the latter. </em></p><p></p><p></p><p><em>Baker possibly comes to see that agreement to a rule is never located in the rule - meaning that the social contract if functioning will work without them - and transfers attention to what following rules might achieve. I'm not sure from what you have written whether you agree? I take Baker to be saying, essentially, that rules can be forceful (so that the first and last part of your summary amount to the same thing.) The OP implies the additional necessity of pre-existing norms to rely on: I state it outright.</em></p><p></p><p><strong>Rules supersede pre-existing norms and extend beyond them. </strong></p><p><em>Regardless of whether there are or are not lapses (whether participants do or don't agree) if they follow the rule then what the rule functionally does is supersede and extend beyond any pre-existing norm. I cannot see where this is stated in the OP, although I do see where some useful consequences of this are stated. This statement has many useful implications for games and if the OP intended it, then I think it should have spelt it out.</em></p><p></p><p><strong>During play it can be decided if any D has the consequences C by matching that D to a norm or rule that explicitly states or implies that C.</strong></p><p><em>I call attention to the matching, which again I do not see in the OP but which I saw right away in Schauer and I understand to be a general problem in law: beyond trivial examples, how do we know that a rule fits a case? This necessitates strategies to secure it: in AW that's a design strategy, in D&D that's an organisational strategy. Once we have a rule that matches, the functional mapping itself is as implied in the OP.</em></p><p></p><p>So perhaps it is right that I have just reframed what you felt to be implied in the OP. As outlined, I felt that some things were not well enough implied so I went ahead and attempted to formulate a definition. I'm glad that it reflects the OP, and although you did not say it, there is really nothing in what I have written that should not reflect background discourse. It needs more work. I'd value further insights into whether my supposed additions really are additions in the meantime.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9033140, member: 71699"] Rereading your OP I retain the feeling that Baker takes an... I guess it could be called teleological approach. He has purposes in mind and he punts game rules like those that model the world that don't fit those purposes. I am aiming for a definition that will include such rules. I'm thinking about bare cause and function. I'm not concerned with the social negotiation, only with what concretely happens when a rule is followed. That is why I shift tone: the first line lays out when we have cause to follow a rule. The rest lay out what following a rule amounts to. Baker writes You summarised that I couldn't find anywhere in the account where it states exactly how that "shaping" takes place. The process, not the purpose. I felt that if one could state the process a bit more clearly, one might see how it could fit with a diversity of purposes. [B]So far as pre-existing norms extend, participants can often agree that a description D will have the consequences C. [/B] [I]Lapses here necessitate the rule so it's right to observe that this reflects the OP, although I call attention both to the possibility of non-agreement, and the possibility of lack of a norm. I can't see where the OP calls attention to the latter. [/I] [I]Baker possibly comes to see that agreement to a rule is never located in the rule - meaning that the social contract if functioning will work without them - and transfers attention to what following rules might achieve. I'm not sure from what you have written whether you agree? I take Baker to be saying, essentially, that rules can be forceful (so that the first and last part of your summary amount to the same thing.) The OP implies the additional necessity of pre-existing norms to rely on: I state it outright.[/I] [B]Rules supersede pre-existing norms and extend beyond them. [/B] [I]Regardless of whether there are or are not lapses (whether participants do or don't agree) if they follow the rule then what the rule functionally does is supersede and extend beyond any pre-existing norm. I cannot see where this is stated in the OP, although I do see where some useful consequences of this are stated. This statement has many useful implications for games and if the OP intended it, then I think it should have spelt it out.[/I] [B]During play it can be decided if any D has the consequences C by matching that D to a norm or rule that explicitly states or implies that C.[/B] [I]I call attention to the matching, which again I do not see in the OP but which I saw right away in Schauer and I understand to be a general problem in law: beyond trivial examples, how do we know that a rule fits a case? This necessitates strategies to secure it: in AW that's a design strategy, in D&D that's an organisational strategy. Once we have a rule that matches, the functional mapping itself is as implied in the OP.[/I] So perhaps it is right that I have just reframed what you felt to be implied in the OP. As outlined, I felt that some things were not well enough implied so I went ahead and attempted to formulate a definition. I'm glad that it reflects the OP, and although you did not say it, there is really nothing in what I have written that should not reflect background discourse. It needs more work. I'd value further insights into whether my supposed additions really are additions in the meantime. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Why do RPGs have rules?
Top