The meaning of Big R "Rules"

[Mike Holmes]

In Vaxalon's post here: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12144

he discussed the term System. I was hoping to get some treatement of the term Rules as it pertains. It seems to me that one can help define the other.

Simply, would it make sense to say that Rules are the individually agreed to methods that comprise System? Or is that too simple.

Also, should this term be System Rules, or something to distinguish it as jargon?

Mike

[xiombarg]

I thought Rules were what Vaxalon called system -- the written-down rules of the game. How you interpret those Rules is part of System.

[Mike Holmes]

That would be a reasonable version.

I've often used Text to refer to the written portion, however. It seems to have some advantages.

Mike

[Christopher Weeks]

Do examples of play (or rule use) count as Rules?  Do snippets of fiction at the start of each chapter?  I think I think that these are part of the text but not the rules.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Now I think we're getting into Mechanics (or, Walt will tell me, Mechanisms).

No?

How about the Mechanisms are the algorythmic methods for determining SIS. These can be found in the Text, or elsewhere. Wherever methods come from, they are rules. The sum total of the rules is the system?

Which don't make sense?

Mike

[Vaxalon]

And don't forget house-rules.  They need not be written down.

Getting out of the realm of RPG's, the rules of "Mao" are (according to tradition) not supposed to be written down, or even taught; they are to be experienced.  It wouldn't be hard to imagine a roleplaying game that used the same warped construct.

[lumpley]

My proposal:

A technique is something you do in order to negotiate one single little moment of play.  "Your guy hits mine if you can guess what I had for lunch."

A rule is a technique you like to use when certain circumstances come up.  "Our rule for hitting is, if you can guess what I had for lunch, your guy hits."  Note that this depends on your actual use of the technique.

A mechanic is a technique that calls upon some real-world token or representation.  "Our mechanic for death is, if your guy hits mine, I roll a d6, and if it comes up less than the number of times my guy's been hit before, my guy dies."  Sorry, Walt.

Your System is the techniques you're using right this second, be they mechanics, rules or neither.

The game text is one source for rules.  It's also a real-world token or representation on which mechanics can call: "Our mechanic for going places is, when we go someplace, we look at the map in the game book and see what it says."

-Vincent

[Vaxalon]

"like to use" might be imprecise.

I'd edit that to say, simply, "use".

The rule is what you use.  If it's in a book, but you don't use it, then it's not part of your instance of the game.

Remember, also, that there are two meanings of the word "game"

One can refer to the published entity, and one to the actual gathering or series of gatherings.

[lumpley]

How about "habitually" or "generally"?  It's a rule if, as a rule, we use it.  All other things being equal.

-Vincent

[Mike Holmes]

How about "agree to" tacitly or explicitly?

As in: A rule is a method that is agreed to (no matter how) by the participants to use to create SIS in a certain set of circumstances.

Or something like that.

I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with Technique in this context. That is, I don't think what you have is quite what Technique is in terms of the Big Model. That is:

Method: a means to create something in the SIS.

Technique: a method used regularly to create something in the SIS.

And I think that the algorhithm part of mechanism is important. It states that there are some series of steps to take to get from the input to the output.

Thus it would be a Rule that in D&D the GM decides what monsters appear and where, but combat is a series of mechanisms, rules that refer to algorithms to accomplish creation of the resultant SIS.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

Mike, I think you have to drop "implicitly" from your definition, or you've got no distinction between "rules" and "system". Also, I think that there is yet another distinction between rules and system that has not been recognized here that is important, but difficult to express.

Let me suggest that a rule is any method of resolving content in the shared imaginary space that has been articulated and either tacitly or actively accepted.

This then would include the rules in the text, any written house rules, and any spoken house rules that are remembered and referenced.

Rules are not system; they are an authority referenced in determining system. That is another important distinction, because rules may exist as an openly agreed part of play but be ignored in specific instances because the system doesn't call them into play.

That recognizes all those times when you didn't roll the attack or damage roll because the referee just "gave it to you" as something he figured would be automatic under the circumstances, even though you otherwise play with the "rule" that all hits and damage are rolled.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

I see where you're going, MJ, but that assumes that we go with your "systemless" play idea, and that play without rules (that is, constantly changing methods with no agreement) is still system.  That's somebody else's  debate.

OTOH, I like the idea of the referenced authority. I'm with you on that idea.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

I see where you're going, MJ, but that assumes that we go with your "systemless" play idea, and that play without rules (that is, constantly changing methods with no agreement) is still system.  That's somebody else's  debate.

I don't think so, Mike. The distinction isn't whether the system is fluid or fixed, but whether it is articulated.

I think most of us agree that if for whatever reason Referee tends to favor Player One, and all the other players have accepted this, that this favoritism is part of the system. No one ever wrote or even said that it was expected in play that Referee would favor Player One, but it is apparently a fixed part of how play proceeds. In that sense, it's not a rule ("3.5.2 Referee shall favor Player One whenever it is possible to do so") but a fixed part of the system.

Play without rules is still system, whether that system is "whatever Joe allows is what happens" or something much more complicated. It doesn't matter whether the perceived rules change, as in "I successfully jumped this distance last time"/"Yeah, but this time you didn't", or whether a form of precedence is established through play such that previous judgments constrain subsequent judgments. The system ultimately says who gets to say what happens in the shared imaginary space, whether it does so by providing mechanics to which a player can appeal for authority or merely by designating the person who gets to make that decision.

This is an important point that is overlooked. A "to hit" roll doesn't actually determine whether a hit is successful. A person determines whether the hit is successful. The die roll may be the basis upon which the person makes that determination, and so is a designated authority concerning how the system should work, but only people have the credibility to say what happens. They interpret the text, the dice, and any other authoritative references which are intended to guide their play, but those references are just that--references which inform their decisions. The decisions are the part that matter.

Recent challenges to the Lumpley Principle in another thread have argued that "bribing the referee with pizza" is not part of the system because if it were everything would be part of the system. Not everything in the social contract is part of the system. "No one flirts with the referee's wife" is part of the social contract, but not part of the system. "Anyone who flirts with the referee's wife will suffer in-game consequences" is. When the player bribes the referee with pizza to get the outcome he desires, the referee is now basing his decision in the matter on the "authority" that he owes this player a favor in exchange for the pizza. That bribe becomes the authority for the decision, and thus is as much a part of system as the rules--the adjunct part, to which we refer for guidance in our decisions.

--M. J. Young

[Vaxalon]

"No one flirts with the referee's wife" is part of the social contract, but not part of the system. "Anyone who flirts with the referee's wife will suffer in-game consequences" is.

This argument is specious, because the two statements ("No one flirts with the referee's wife" and "Anyone who flirts with the referee's wife will suffer in-game consequences" ) are too different from each other.  Let me rephrase them.

"Anyone who flirts with the GM's wife will be beaten to a pulp."

"Anyone who flirts with teh GM's wife will find his character beaten to a pulp."

MJ, can we agree that these two statements can form a basis for debate on this issue?

[M. J. Young]

"No one flirts with the referee's wife" is part of the social contract, but not part of the system. "Anyone who flirts with the referee's wife will suffer in-game consequences" is.

This argument is specious, because the two statements ("No one flirts with the referee's wife" and "Anyone who flirts with the referee's wife will suffer in-game consequences" ) are too different from each other.  Let me rephrase them.

"Anyone who flirts with the GM's wife will be beaten to a pulp."

"Anyone who flirts with teh GM's wife will find his character beaten to a pulp."

MJ, can we agree that these two statements can form a basis for debate on this issue?

Yeah, I'll accept those as "specific" examples of what I said. I disagree that my statements aren't sufficiently different. There are a lot of social contract elements in life that don't have stated or necessarily severe consequences--no one talks in church, for example (not all churches, but many). My comment "no one flirts with the referee's wife" was more of this order--not that there are consequences, but that it's not done because we've all tacitly agreed that it's not done. But your examples are fine.

By the way, Fred, I knew I recognized that handle. I've thought about you from time to time, wondered where you were. It's good to see you again.

--M. J. Young