Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9258140" data-attributes="member: 42582">If there is a rule that, in order to be followed in circumstance C, requires doing P; and a rule that in order to be followed, in the same circumstance C, requires doing Q which (among other things) is inconsistent with P, then it seems to follow that they're different rules.Likewise: if there is a rule that, in order to be followed in circumstance C, requires doing P; and a rule that in order to be followed, in the same circumstance C, permits doing Q which (among other things) is inconsistent with P, then it also seems to follow that they're different rules.The fact in both of the above cases that the two rules, when reduced to writing in English, might be stated using the same words doesn't seem to make them the same rule.An example of the first, courtesy of Dworkin: the rule, stated in English, is Be respectful when you and another both come to a doorway at the same time, intending to pass through. Person A reads those words and adopts the rule: I, a man, must open the door and then yield to a woman who has arrived at the door with me. Person B reads those words and adopts the rule: I, a man, must treat a woman who arrives at the door at the same time as me no differently from how I would treat a man. A and B are following different rules, based on different norms of respect.An example of the second: the rule, stated in English, is Drive at a reasonable speed. Person A reads those words and takes them to require driving no faster than 50 kph. Person B reads those words and takes them to permit driving at 60 kph. Again, A and B appear to be following different rules, based on different norms of reasonableness in driving.On the other hand, if there is a rule that, in order to be followed in circumstance C, permits doing P; and a rule that in order to be followed, in the same circumstance C, permits doing Q which (among other things) is inconsistent with P, then the two rules may be the same one.An example: the rule, stated in English, is Get your teacher a suitable gift at the end of the school year. A and B read those words, both form the view that any sort of non-intoxicating food or drink might be a reasonable gift, and so A gets the teacher a box of chocolates and B gets the teacher a nicely-shaped bottle of a boutique fruit juice. A and B have followed the rule in different ways, but have not followed different rules. The rule itself demands that the person following it choose from a range of acceptable options.So when you talk about rules being followed different ways, I can't tell which sort of case you have in mind. Like, when I GM Torchbearer and when [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] GMs Torchbearer, we often have to follow a rule along the lines of Choose a consequence that will sting. It's well known that I tend to choose softer or more sentimental consequences than Manbearcat. We're both following the same rule, but the "flavour"/"tone"/"feel" of our games is different as a result of the different tendencies in our choices.On the other hand, the 4e PHB (pre-errata) included a feat, Weapon Focus, which said "Choose a specific weapon group, such as spears or heavy blades. You gain a +1 feat bonus to damage rolls with your chosen weapon group." Many 4e tables interpreted this to permit adding the feat bonus to damage to an Implement attack power where a weapon of the chosen group was used as an implement. It seemed obvious to me that the feat only applied to Weapon attack powers: although no such limitation was expressly stated, the recurrent reference to weapon and especially the description of the effect referring to damage rolls with a weapon made it seem obvious to me that damage rolls with an implement [power, or that is a "weaplement"] were excluded.So this was a case where I took the feat to require use of a Weapon attack power in order to get the bonus; while some others took it to permit use of an Implement attack power while receiving a bonus; and using an Implement attack power is inconsistent with using a Weapon attack power. Although in both cases we were applying a rule stated using the same English text, it seems to me that we were applying different rules. So this is not a case like the difference between [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] and me GMing Torchbearer.Most discussions of RPG rules are not very sensitive to these different ways of analysing differences in the following of rules: the technical apparatus I am applying belongs to jurisprudence (and perhaps philosophy of language and of mathematics) rather than to the discourse typically found on message boards and blogs.And as I said, I don't know what range of cases you have in mind in talking about differences in the following of rules.The first sentence here seems to be an empirical conjecture about the relationship between certain artefacts - say, English texts purporting to set out rules for playing a game - and the behaviour of those who pick up those artefacts and put them to work. It's like saying that 90% of hammer uses will use them to hammer in nails, but 10% will use them to smash open coconuts. Etc.I don't understand the second and third sentences. The rule is normative or the rule is deontic seem largely tautological, given that we're talking about rules for engaging in a social activity (ie game play) and "normative" means establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behaviour (thanks Google) while "deontic" means relating to duty and obligation as ethical concepts (thanks again Google). So yes, the rules of a game establish standards of conduct, including duties, that apply within the context of playing the game.Vincent Baker, who is a leader - in the context of RPG analysis - in identifying the social character of RPG play and the implications of this for understanding play and for RPG design, is well aware of these matters. He sums them up in the "lumpley principle". When talking about mediating cues Baker is not contrasting their use with (say) the law of gravity, which does not depend upon social cohesion or cooperation in order to take effect. He is contrasting the content of the rule: a rule involving mediating cues imposes, as part of its content, a duty to say something about the fiction within certain limits or that contains a certain sort of element; whereas what makes the use of cues a procedural use is that the cues allocate permissions to add to the fiction but do not tell the person who received the permission what it is that they have to say.I don't see why it matters, or what is at stake.I just described the role of mediating cues using the language of duty. I could redescribe it using the language of ideal and aspiration: a rule involving mediating cues, as part of its content, directs a designated participant to do their best to say something about the fiction within certain limits or that contains a certain sort of element.The redescription is a bit weaker in the normative demand it imposes. In practice, it will take you to pretty much the same place. And you can see a compromise between the two ways of stating a rule in Open your brain to the psychic maelstrom - Baker states it in terms of duty on the MC, then says that if there's nothing interesting the MC can say that, and then tells the MC that he (Baker) hopes that they (the MC) never do so. In other words, the duty is stated with an out clause, and then the MC is told to do their best never to use the out clause. I don't think that we shed any further light on this rule of AW by agonising over whether its "true" characters is that of a duty, or an aspiration.Manifestly, these are not the sorts of principles that he is referring to in the quote on the blog. The principles given in the quote on the blog are principles for governing freeform RPGing, and they are principles that deal with who gets to say stuff about various elements of the shared fiction.I don't think it's too scanty at all. I think it's pretty obvious.</blockquote>

Verification