Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9268267" data-attributes="member: 42582">In philosophy of law, the contrast between rules and principles is sometimes (maybe &quot;often&quot; would be better) understood as being between being amenable to all or nothing application (rules are like this) vs having weight but not, in themselves, being determinative (principles are like this).An example of a rule: do not drive faster than the marked speed limit.An example of a principle: those who create risk should bear the cost of harm that results from that risk crystallising.Some legal requirements can be stated with the syntax of a rule - eg a person who causes harm by negligent action, to someone to whom they owe a duty of care, will be liable to compensate that harm - but may be better analysed as complexes of principle (eg the negligence &quot;rule&quot; combines the principle I stated just above, with other principles about remoteness, foreseeability, community and professional standards and expectations, etc).I'm not sure what's at stake, in the context of RPG design and play, in the distinction between rules and principles. In Apocalypse World, a distinction is drawn between principles and moves. Player-side moves are particular mechanical &quot;widgets&quot; and processes that either affect other moves, or else mediate changes in the fiction (as per Vincent Baker's work on clouds and boxes). GM-side moves are particular patterns of fiction-introduction, that help discipline and direct the GM's introduction of fiction.Principles, in AW, are not directly methods of, or patterns for, adding new fiction. They guide the GM in their making of moves: they play a sort-of &quot;meta&quot; role.I don't see what utility there is in denying that the AW principles are not rules. They set normative standards for the GM to comply with. Sometimes they might need to be &quot;balanced&quot; or &quot;weighed&quot; against one another - eg Look through crosshairs and Be a fan of the players' characters might sometimes come into tension (suppose a NPC is very precious to a PC) - but this is not true of all of them. Make your move, but never speak its name and Make your move, but misdirect, are particularly clear examples here: there is no reason that the GM should not comply with these in every moment of play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9268267, member: 42582"] In philosophy of law, the contrast between rules and principles is sometimes (maybe "often" would be better) understood as being between [I]being amenable to all or nothing[/I] application (rules are like this) vs [I]having weight but not, in themselves, being determinative[/I] (principles are like this). An example of a rule: do not drive faster than the marked speed limit. An example of a principle: those who create risk should bear the cost of harm that results from that risk crystallising. Some legal requirements can be stated with the syntax of a rule - eg [I]a person who causes harm by negligent action, to someone to whom they owe a duty of care, will be liable to compensate that harm[/I] - but may be better analysed as complexes of principle (eg the negligence "rule" combines the principle I stated just above, with other principles about remoteness, foreseeability, community and professional standards and expectations, etc). I'm not sure what's at stake, in the context of RPG design and play, in the distinction between rules and principles. In Apocalypse World, a distinction is drawn between [I]principles[/I] and [I]moves[/I]. Player-side moves are particular mechanical "widgets" and processes that either affect other moves, or else mediate changes in the fiction (as per Vincent Baker's work on clouds and boxes). GM-side moves are particular patterns of fiction-introduction, that help discipline and direct the GM's introduction of fiction. Principles, in AW, are not directly methods of, or patterns for, adding new fiction. They guide the GM in their making of moves: they play a sort-of "meta" role. I don't see what utility there is in denying that the AW principles are not rules. They set normative standards for the GM to comply with. Sometimes they might need to be "balanced" or "weighed" against one another - eg [I]Look through crosshairs[/I] and [I]Be a fan of the players' characters[/I] might sometimes come into tension (suppose a NPC is very precious to a PC) - but this is not true of all of them. [I]Make your move, but never speak its name[/I] and [I]Make your move, but misdirect[/I], are particularly clear examples here: there is no reason that the GM should not comply with these in every moment of play. [/QUOTE]

Verification