Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9033768" data-attributes="member: 6696971">What is the difference between hard-rule status and soft-rule status you're envisioning here?&nbsp; Because the way it seems to me, in Lanefanian D&amp;D (given your testimonials and excerpts it looks like Hickman Revolution meets some Gygaxian conceits and tropes), all play proceeds under the overarching proviso of Rule 0.&nbsp; So there doesn't need to be any distinguishing between guidelines or rules (hard or soft or anywhere in between).&nbsp; You have &quot;one rule to rule them all.&quot;&nbsp; If that rule says &quot;you're in&quot; (&quot;you&quot; here might be a mechanic, or a procedure, or an action declaration, or an outcome of play, or a principle that undergirds either of the former)...then &quot;you're in.&quot;&nbsp; If that rule says &quot;GTFO&quot;...then &quot;GTFO.&quot;But that is a particular organizational structure (all other aspects of play are provisional pending the approval of the &quot;one rule to rule them all&quot;) of a particular game, not TTRPGs in general.&nbsp; I mean, if you want to say &quot;in Lanefanian D&amp;D (and those that play similarly) there is only one hard-rule and everything else is a provisional guideline contingent upon the yay/nay of the one hard-rule&quot;, then...sure?&nbsp; I mean I don't see the necessity even in your case because even those provisional guidelines, as you want to call them, still inform and direct play if they're approved.&nbsp; Once they're approved, why does it matter if we call them rules then vs guidelines?&nbsp; Is this kind of a recursive &quot;because letting them graduate from guidelines to rules makes it sound like they're not still subordinate to Rule 0...like they can't be vetoed at a later date or in a particular moment that strikes the GM as veto-worthy.&quot;&nbsp; Like it defangs rule 0 and may slippery slope to GM Disempowerment or something?If so, that just feels needlessly rhetorical (what happens at your game and at D&amp;D tables like it happens at those tables...there is no need for some exception to a philosophical superstructure like &quot;rules are the collection of stuff that informs and direct play...except in the case when another rule allows someone a discretional veto over them...then they're just provisional guidelines&quot;) and calling out a novel interpretation of a game-specific exception doesn't seem particularly helpful when discussing all TTRPGs.The game mechanics are abstractions or one particular form of negotiated imagination.&nbsp; But they don't do the heavy lifting of abstracting or negotiating.&nbsp; The game mechanics happen in meat space.&nbsp; They happen around the table.&nbsp; Someone rolls dice, references a table, announces a target number, draws or plays a card, spends a currency, subtracts a total, crosses off a piece of inventory, ticks a clock, pulls from a Jenga tower.&nbsp; Whatever.The negotiation of what happens and abstraction onto the imagined space is conferred to us around the table.&nbsp; Someone (in your form of D&amp;D, that is typically or nearly universally the GM) either outright says what happens next within the constraints, boundaries, duties afforded to them by the ruleset or they resolve what happens now by referencing, and possibly interpreting or extrapolating (TBD pending system generally or game tech specifically), the collision of game text + present imagined space and possibly some prepped material, mapping how that collision gives rise to a change of state in the fiction: game interface.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 9033768, member: 6696971"] What is the difference between[I] hard-rule status[/I] and [I]soft-rule status[/I] you're envisioning here? Because the way it seems to me, in Lanefanian D&D (given your testimonials and excerpts it looks like Hickman Revolution meets some Gygaxian conceits and tropes), all play proceeds under the overarching proviso of Rule 0. So there doesn't need to be any distinguishing between [I]guidelines [/I]or [I]rules [/I](hard or soft or anywhere in between). You have "one rule to rule them all." If that rule says "you're in" ("you" here might be a mechanic, or a procedure, or an action declaration, or an outcome of play, or a principle that undergirds either of the former)...then "you're in." If that rule says "GTFO"...then "GTFO." But that is a particular organizational structure (all other aspects of play are provisional pending the approval of the "one rule to rule them all") of a particular game, not TTRPGs in general. I mean, if you want to say "in Lanefanian D&D (and those that play similarly) there is only one[I] hard-rule[/I] and everything else is a provisional [I]guideline [/I]contingent upon the yay/nay of the one [I]hard-rule[/I]", then...sure? I mean I don't see the necessity even in your case because even those provisional [I]guidelines, [/I]as you want to call them, still [B]inform and direct play[/B] if they're approved. Once they're approved, why does it matter if we call them rules then vs guidelines? Is this kind of a recursive "because letting them graduate from guidelines to rules makes it sound like they're not still subordinate to Rule 0...like they can't be vetoed at a later date or in a particular moment that strikes the GM as veto-worthy." Like it defangs rule 0 and may slippery slope to GM Disempowerment or something? If so, that just feels needlessly rhetorical (what happens at your game and at D&D tables like it happens at those tables...there is no need for some exception to a philosophical superstructure like "rules are the collection of stuff that informs and direct play...except in the case when another rule allows someone a discretional veto over them...then they're just provisional guidelines") and calling out a novel interpretation of a game-specific exception doesn't seem particularly helpful when discussing all TTRPGs. The game mechanics are abstractions or one particular form of negotiated imagination. But they don't do the heavy lifting of abstracting or negotiating. The game mechanics happen in meat space. They happen around the table. Someone rolls dice, references a table, announces a target number, draws or plays a card, spends a currency, subtracts a total, crosses off a piece of inventory, ticks a clock, pulls from a Jenga tower. Whatever. The negotiation of what happens and abstraction onto the imagined space is conferred to us around the table. Someone (in your form of D&D, that is typically or nearly universally the GM) either outright says what happens next within the constraints, boundaries, duties afforded to them by the ruleset or they resolve what happens now by referencing, and possibly interpreting or extrapolating (TBD pending system generally or game tech specifically), the collision of game text + present imagined space and possibly some prepped material, mapping how that collision gives rise to a change of state in the fiction: game interface. [/QUOTE]

Verification