Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9044965" data-attributes="member: 71699">I'm reiterating that the set of &quot;natural&quot; possibilities - things we can do in RPG without rules - can have the same contents as the set of ruled possibilities. Whether we decide to count those as possible due to rules, or simply possible, it makes the contents of E not dependent on rules. That's a basic element of [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER]'s argument.I have the same intuition and follow the same logical path, but I'm not sure how one would prove the first premise (bolded) to be true. I see no reason to settle the question. I'm not even sure how it could be settled. But what I think we can readily agree is that for some TTRPG thing to be possible for us to do, we must know to do that TTRPG thing.I'm &quot;grasping the nettle&quot; and saying - okay then, so we can do whatever in TTRPG so long as we have some disposition, norm, or rule securing that we know to do it. It is still quite easy to answer why rules are needed. (And it's not just to avoid doing things we don't want to do!)Rules are needed to supersede pre-existing norms, and extend beyond them <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :p"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />[USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER]'s all-possibilities thought-experiment neatly shows that my statement must be understood locally and temporally. Or to put it another way, rules ensure that the right sort of possibilities are available and prevail at my table in this game session.But you are talking about the various (and varying) motives we'd have for doing that! Which many posts ago I vowed to keep the focus on. I summarised some of them in my #1769. In that post, I pictured your &quot;emergent possibilities&quot; falling in 2. but based on your recent I feel it should be called out as it's own &quot;why&quot; of rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9044965, member: 71699"] I'm reiterating that the set of "natural" possibilities - things we can do in RPG [I]without [/I]rules - can have the same contents as the set of ruled possibilities. Whether we decide to count those as possible due to rules, or simply possible, it makes the contents of E not dependent on rules. That's a basic element of [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER]'s argument. I have the same intuition and follow the same logical path, but I'm not sure how one would prove the first premise (bolded) to be true. I see no reason to settle the question. I'm not even sure how it could be settled. But what I think we can readily agree is that for some TTRPG thing to be possible for us to do, we must know to do that TTRPG thing. I'm "grasping the nettle" and saying - okay then, so we can do whatever in TTRPG so long as we have some disposition, norm, or rule securing that we know to do it. It is still quite easy to answer why rules are needed. (And it's not just to avoid doing things we don't want to do!) Rules are needed to supersede pre-existing norms, and extend beyond them :p [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER]'s all-possibilities thought-experiment neatly shows that my statement must be understood locally and temporally. Or to put it another way, rules ensure that the right sort of possibilities are available and prevail at my table in this game session. But you are talking about the various (and varying) motives we'd have for doing that! Which many posts ago I vowed to keep the focus on. I summarised some of them in my #1769. In that post, I pictured your "emergent possibilities" falling in 2. but based on your recent I feel it should be called out as it's own "why" of rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification