Post/Author/DateTime	Post
loaba 08-17-05, 09:17 AM	Hola everyone, have a question concerning DnD and the English language. A friend has determined that all rules are limitations and that all limitations are impairments, therefore rules are impairments. I vehemently disagree with this statement, so I pose the question to you, here on the DM forum (rather than the player forum). Is my friend right? If so, I will concede the point. However, I like to think that I have a decent command of the language… But again, if I am wrong, I will acknowledge that. lim•it n. 1. The point, edge, or line beyond which something cannot or may not proceed. 2. limits The boundary surrounding a specific area; bounds: within the city limits. 3. A confining or restricting object, agent, or influence. 4. The greatest or least amount, number, or extent allowed or possible: a withdrawal limit of $200; no minimum age limit. 5. Games. The largest amount which may be bet at one time in games of chance. 6. Abbr. lim Mathematics. A number or point L that is approached by a function f(x) as x approaches a if, for every positive number , there exists a number such that f(x)-L < if 0 < x-a < . Also called limit point, point of accumulation. 7. Informal. One that approaches or exceeds certain limits, as of credibility, forbearance, or acceptability: He is the limit of irresponsibility. The above definition demonstrates that rules of a game, such as DnD, do in fact represent a surrounding boundary. DnD rules influence every aspect of the game, from character creation, to combating monsters, to negotiating obstacles. It is true, DnD rules represent limitations. im•pair tr.v. im•paired, im•pair•ing, im•pairs To cause to diminish, as in strength, value, or quality: an injury that impaired my hearing; a severe storm impairing communications. Impair represents loss of previous ability. Impair, is a transitive verb, and therefore must have a direct object. When referring to ‘the rules’ as an ‘impairment’, what is being affected? The rules in DnD are abstract, meaning they are concrete. The rules that apply to me, apply equally to you within the game world. When trying to determine if ability is impaired, we first have to know what the norm is, right? Per the above definition, a storm can impair communications. Presumably, after the storm is over, the state of communications will return to normal, but what is ‘normal’? Aren’t there multiple factors that limit various types of communications? If limits are always impairments, then why say “a severe storm impair[ed] communications” in the first place? ‘The rules effectively impair my ability to move’. Is this statement true? I don’t think it is. Every single player is subject to the same movement rules as you. Some players may find themselves with superior abilities due racial/class bonuses, types of armor worn, even spell enhancements. But the fact remains everyone is subject to the same base rules. I cannot run as far and as fast as X. X is in better condition then I am and has a wider range of motion. Does this mean that when compared to X, I am impaired? Or does it mean that when compared to me, X is superior, better? In order for a limitation to be considered impairment, it has to negatively affect something that has an established norm. Note to mods - if this is in the wrong forum, please advise.
Cymraegmorgan 08-17-05, 09:24 AM	Let me guess, your "friend" finally passed his sophomore Semantics course. :rolleyes:
Lord Ian Stark 08-17-05, 09:25 AM	Whether you get the grammatically correct answer to whether the rules are impairments or not, will it effect your game play? I look at your inquiry as the question of whether a glass is half full or half empty. Everyone knows the answer to the question is half full as the normal state of a glass is empty but that's besides the point. ;) Also it's like the Laws of where you live. To the thieves, crooks, and general insane wackos, the laws are impairments. To everyone else they are necessary. Some may be a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless. It's all in the eye of the :behold:
VinylVillichi 08-17-05, 09:28 AM	It has been my experience that players that see rules as an impairment only believe so when the rule doesn't let them have everything they want. DM-"You failed your saving throw. You are entranced to the evil wizard." Player- "These rules are an impairment!" however... DM-"The evil wizard failed his saving throw. He is entranced to you." Player- "WooHoo! All right, let's get his password," Offer to let him play without those pesky rules. But make clear that the BBEG no longer are bound by those impairments either. You'll be surprised how fast those rules cease to be so "restricting."
loaba 08-17-05, 09:31 AM	Ian, no of course not, this does not affect my game one whit. I am only asking because at this point, I question my own sanity! Yes, I realize I am arguing semantics (or my friend is), I guess I just want some validation (in part because I do not view rules as impairments at all).
Lord Ian Stark 08-17-05, 09:37 AM	Yes, I realize I am arguing semantics (or my friend is), I guess I just want some validation (in part because I do not view rules as impairments at all). And there is no end all be all answer as I was hinting towards above in my rambling. You can however compare him to the insane wacko that thinks Law Enforcement Laws are an impairment on society. :D
Ravenseye 08-17-05, 09:41 AM	Hola everyone, have a question concerning DnD and the English language. A friend has determined that all rules are limitations and that all limitations are impairments, therefore rules are impairments. I don't see how it matters. Cymraegmorgan's statement about semantics echoed my initial thoughts. I thought more about it though, and do in fact disagree with it. Even though it's sort of a meaningless statement. 1. All rules are limitations: "We got one rule. That thar be no rules." Would that limit anyone? It's still a rule. Not all rules are limitations. 2. All limitations are impairments: Limitations can be impairments for some, and improvements for others. A Police line impairs a passerby from examining a crime scene, but improves the situation for the police by keeping it untouched. A guard rail along a cliff side impairs your ability to drive off a cliff and plummet to your death. Or does it improve your safety by preventing you from doing just that? Limitations are situational and can impair or improve your situation. Not all limitations are impairments. Therefore all rules are not impairments.
loaba 08-17-05, 09:51 AM	Ian - Hmm, it is looking that way. Thing is, he has called into question my understanding of the language, and that is what really irks me. At this point, I don't care if I am right or wrong, I just want to know the truth! Again, from a game perspective, I agree with you and Vinyle. People who view the rules as a kind of impairment are generally looking for an edge. Whether I play or DM, I see the rules as being there to make sure everyone has a chance and that everything is fair and constant. The completeness of the rules is one of the main reasons I really embraced the d20 system in the first place. Ravenseye - I can certainly agree with that. But are DnD rules impairments? I don't think they are.
Ravenseye 08-17-05, 10:00 AM	Ravenseye - I can certainly agree with that. But are DnD rules impairments? I don't think they are. Honestly if someone asked me if D&D rules are impairments I'd probably say "sure. What? You want to just have a 1st level character that can cast any spell he wants while wearing plate armor?" Rules in games are never impairments. That implys damage. Rules ALLOW a game to fairly occur between multiple parties. Whenever you do anything with multiple people you NEED rules in order to interact. Even if you're unaware of the rules. In real life we have rules to. You can't just walk up to someone and punch them in the face and walk away. You can try but there are rules and you'll probably be arrested, and face the rules. Same in a game. When you're sitting by yourself daydreaming, imagine whatever you want. When you're interacting with other people. ALWAYS expect rules. SUre they're impairments, but they're also positive because it allows everyone to interact more effectively.
Nomad4life 08-17-05, 10:18 AM	A rule in a game (any game, from D&D to sports) can never technically be an “impairment.” This is because an impairment must in some way limit or diminish an otherwise normative capacity. Since the rules for D&D enable a player to do things he/she would ordinarily not be able to do (cast spells, turn undead, etc…) any limitation on these actions does not impair the player in any way. In other words, you can’t diminish (“make smaller”) something that never had full form to begin with.
Cantankerous 08-17-05, 10:18 AM	Imparement, even by the definition supplied, implies diminishment. Rules, by their nature when the subject matter is games and gamesmanship, imply enhancement, the polar opposite of diminishment. Isshia
Clarity 08-17-05, 10:36 AM	What a wonderfully useless conversation. I would much rather play D&D than argue semantics. However, if you're thirsty for an answer to this question I would suggest taking it to you local university and bouncing it off of an English prof. They will likely think it is even more useless a question than I do but they might have an answer to sate you. Good luck.
Nomad4life 08-17-05, 10:45 AM	I would suggest taking it to you local university and bouncing it off of an English prof. I would take it up with someone who practices law; the definitions in this case are pretty clear, now it’s just a matter of getting the interpretation you want.
Serielle 08-17-05, 10:45 AM	No, your understanding of the word impairment is spot on, as is your argument as to why the limitations set by the rules don't constitute impairment. "All rules are impairments" is a bit broad. If he means that all rules are fundamentally impariements, then it's a meaningless statement as impairment has to be qualified. Impairment to whom? Impairment to what? Within the context of D&D, you're both looking at it differently. From the rules up prespective you argued, rules can never be impariments because they're the entire foundation you're approaching the arguement with. If every action in game cannot have existed without the rules defining them to begin with, then the rules will never be a limitation. It's like saying atoms are a limitation to my existence. As far as freeform goes, then yes, the rules are an impairment to your ability to make things up on the fly, and to do actions that aren't strictly covered by the rules. But again, you need to qualify, because they're obviously not an impairment to everything, otherwise no one would be using the rules to begin with.
loaba 08-17-05, 10:47 AM	I am seeing a constant here - arguing semantics is pointless. Fair enough. No, your understanding of the word impairment is spot on, as is your argument as to why the limitations set by the rules don't constitute impairment. "All rules are impairments" is a bit broad. If he means that all rules are fundamentally impariements, then it's a meaningless statement as impairment has to be qualified. Impairment to whom? Impairment to what? Within the context of D&D, you're both looking at it differently. From the rules up prespective you argued, rules can never be impariments because they're the entire foundation you're approaching the arguement with. If every action in game cannot have existed without the rules defining them to begin with, then the rules will never be a limitation. It's like saying atoms are a limitation to my existence. As far as freeform goes, then yes, the rules are an impairment to your ability to make things up on the fly, and to do actions that aren't strictly covered by the rules. ^Absolutely - in a game where decisions are routinely made on the fly, for negative or positive reasons, rules can get in the way.
kaeso 08-17-05, 10:51 AM	It's all in the eye of the :behold: :rofl: :heehee
loaba 08-17-05, 11:26 AM	I would take it up with someone who practices law; the definitions in this case are pretty clear, now it’s just a matter of getting the interpretation you want. Not the interpretation I want per se, rather the correct interpretation.
Cyra 08-17-05, 11:32 AM	yes rules are impairments. Vital, Strucurally nessicary, and overwhelmingly important impairments.
loaba 08-17-05, 11:37 AM	yes rules are impairments. Vital, Strucurally nessicary, and overwhelmingly important impairments. Would you mind explaining a bit further?
JD 08-17-05, 11:39 AM	Without rules, PCs have no freedom, to paraphrase the popular saying.
cmrscorpio 08-17-05, 12:11 PM	Logically speaking, if all a are b and all b are c, then all a are c. Now, from a standpoint of pure logic, the statement of "all rules are limitations and that all limitations are impairments, therefore rules are impairments" is logically sound, but is it a true statement? No. In order for a statement to be logically true, its premises and conclusion must follow logical rules. The "All rules.." statement meets this criterion. However, there is another criterion for a statement to be logically true: it must be a valid argument, meaning that all of the premises are true. Why is this statement illogical? "All rules are limitations" is a false statement. "*Some* rules are limitations" is a true statement. Here's a RL example that proves the "All rules are limitations" premise wrong. Rules create and define the game of D&D. Without rules, the game could not be played because rules *facilitate* the playing of games. Games simply cannot exist without rules. Rules enable the player to play the game. Now, since the first premise has been proven invalid, the entire statement has been proven invalid. Your friend's statement sounds logical, but it is not a valid statement because the premise/argument is invalid. Therefore the statement is rendered illogical. ps. my advice to you is to tell your friend to stop acting like an ***** over semantics and just enjoy the game.
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 12:27 PM	Game rules are there to define what you can and cannot do. As such, they are inherent limitations. Some limitations are usually desirable, combat rules being a good example, others may not be, depending on your game and style. While some rules systems present new options, magic for example, these options are still restricted and codified. D&D's spells per day for example. Other systems, such as skills, are strictly impairing, defining a small range of options your character can attempt with reasonable success. Others, such as classes and alignments serve to further narrow down your character to a small, permitted range of options and actions. Rules are not, however, nescesary, by any stretch of imagination. I have played in a fair share of non-system RPG's and had a blast with them. How many limits and how much structure a game seeks to place, varies a lot. Rules heavy games, such as D&D, GURPS or Rolemaster seek to codify and provide standards for a lot of things, leaving less to be decided, but risks dragging down game play, and becoming unwieldy. Rules light games like basic/expert D&D, Call of cthulhu, FATE or the D6 system (old Star Wars) have only few or simple rules, leaving more up to imagination and interpretation. This empowers the players and GM far more, but can lead to inconsistent and bland gameplay. Neither are ultimately better than the other. Ultimately, Any RPG book is a collection of ideas, house rules and options, telling you how some dude you will never meet, thought you could play his game.
loaba 08-17-05, 12:29 PM	My friend has now informed me that his English prof has already agreed with his assessment of the argument. I have no idea how he framed the question, so I don't really know what to say to that. He has decided that only his interpretation of each word is correct. He is also stressing the fact that impairment and limitation are synonomous and that that is all the proof he needs. At this point, I am tempted to simply yeild the field to his obstinance. But that has some far reaching implications that I don't care to think about. Still, it is beyond pointless.
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 12:35 PM	Are you disagreeing, since you prefer rules heavy systems, because you feel the rules serve to enable more options, because you like to argue, because its somehow construed as an attack on D&D or simply questioning the semantics of his claim ? Whats the objective :)
loaba 08-17-05, 12:45 PM	The objective is to determine if it is correct to say that rules are limitations and limitations are impairments, therefore rules are impairments. The thing about 'impair' is, it has to have an object. There has to be something that was lost, for something to be impaired. In a rigid, rules-based system, where everyone who makes a Full attack is limited to a 5'-step, there is no impairment. You never could make more than a 5' step with this kind of attack. The rules were not written that way. That is an abstract rule, it is simply a part of a make-believe world. If, let's say it is a 10' step with a Full attack, and the Cleric casts a spell that reduces that by half, okay, that is an impairment. Whoever was targeted by that spell has been impaired. Do you see the difference?
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 12:51 PM	In a rules light system, the player would declare that he is running forward, while hacking at the orcs. Hence, limiting him to a 5 foot step is an impairment, of the reasonable assumption that in a cinematic and heroic game, you can hack someone, while running or moving. Its all dependent on what you base your argument on. Magic systems are a close exception, as they enable things that cannot reasonably be considering possible, however they always do so with several restrictions, often extending into other game components as well (typically, magic users not wearing armour f.x.) It can be argued though that such a rules mechanic is not impairing, though it is limited in application.
loaba 08-17-05, 12:58 PM	In a rules light system, the player would declare that he is running forward, while hacking at the orcs. Hence, limiting him to a 5 foot step is an impairment In a rules-light world, where a player could say "I am running forwared to make a full attack" there is no 5' step rule to begin with, that would be incompatible. If there was, the player would not be able to make the above statement, and if he did, he would be deviating from the rules of the world. Its all dependent on what you base your argument on. Yes it is! And my argument is completely based on the idea that rules of the world establishes a norm for all creatures within.
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 01:15 PM	In a rules-light world, where a player could say "I am running forwared to make a full attack" there is no 5' step rule to begin with, that would be incompatible. If there was, the player would not be able to make the above statement, and if he did, he would be deviating from the rules of the world. However, the 5 foot step does not correspond to any reasonable assumptions we have of movement and combat. In fact it is strictly there to assist with miniatures play. Hence, its a limitation of the system, to fit a specific model (miniatures grid) Yes it is! And my argument is completely based on the idea that rules of the world establishes a norm for all creatures within. Very valid. Whether that norm is a limitation or a definition is semantics :)
geekmasterflash 08-17-05, 01:22 PM	Dear Miss Dickinson, I took your English education class last year, my name is [edited, because I don't want you knowing]. You can find me in alumni records. I have a question for you, are limits also impairments? I got into a debate about rules and laws. I said that rules and laws are limitations that tell you what you can and can not do. As such, they impair your ability to go beyond what is stated. An example of this being a speed limit. It tells you how fast you are allowed to go. Does that not also impair your ability to go faster than that? Thank you for taking the time from your day to address my concerns. Yours faithfully, [name edited] Alumni, University of Northern Colorado. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear [name edited], Actually I am glad that you asked this, as I needed an case for E-Prime. I plan on giving a lecture I plan on the very subject. Getting of(f) subject for a moment, I would hope I taught my students better. In a friendly letter you should write "Yours sincerely", "Yours faithfully" should be used for business letters. A limit can easily be defined as an impairment. Certainly the two are synonymous when using the example you have given. You are correct to say that a rule is an impairment, if it limits your ability to act contrary to said rule. One could make the case that impairments have to limit what you are already allowed to do in order to truly be an impairment. That is a fallacy. Impair, as per definition: "To cause to diminish, as in strength, value, or quality." If you are making the case that the rules/limitations/law is diminishing your ability to to act contrary you are correct. Other source may also say: "Impairment n 1: the occurrence of a change for the worse 2: a symptom of reduced quality or strength 3: the condition of being unable to perform as a consequence of physical or mental unfitness; "reading disability"; "hearing impairment" 4: damage that results in a reduction of strength or quality 5: the act of making something futile and useless (as by routine)" When arguing these versions of the definition, you are incorrect on the first definition. If the rule is already in place it does not impair you, as it is not changing. One could argue that changing a rule may be an impairment, if the change weakens something. The second definition remains valid in the argument you are making, as a rule is a symptom reducing the quality of acting to the contrary. The third definition has no relevance to either side of the argument and should be dismissed entirely as a talking point. Impairment doesn't have to be in a physical or mental sense to be an impairment. The fourth definition lends itself to your argument, as one can say it is damaging the ability to act contrary. The fifth definition lends itself completely to your side of the argument as a rule impairs by making contrary action futile and useless. From what you haven given me, I have to say you sound more correct. I will not say you are correct because certain definitions do not side with your argument, they also however do not side with the argument against you. More weight is lent to what you are arguing than not. I hope this helps you out, I would discuss this further but I have a class to teach. If I had to leave you with some advice it would be to not get into arguments of semantics, as that is the entire reason E-Prime is a valid theory. I love the language and hate to see something like E-Prime validated. Yours sincerely, Barb Dickinson, Professor. English education, UNC. Hmm.
loaba 08-17-05, 01:44 PM	However, the 5 foot step does not correspond to any reasonable assumptions we have of movement and combat. In fact it is strictly there to assist with miniatures play. Hence, its a limitation of the system, to fit a specific model (miniatures grid) Thus it is an abstract rule in a make-believe world that establishes a norm. Doesn't matter that you want to take more than a 5' step, you can't and neither can anyone else. You never could, the ability simply does not exist. Therefore, no impairment. Very valid. Whether that norm is a limitation or a definition is semantics :) Exactly, the rules of the game set up the worlds limitations.
weasel fierce 08-17-05, 01:51 PM	It seems we are arguing from different approaches. You appear, if Im not too sleepy, tio say that since the rules define how game-reality works, there are no limitations. While this is an appealing argument, particular when people complain about level limits in AD&D ;), I dont quite agree. My approach is to look at what is possible and imaginable, and see how the rules handle this. The 5 foot step, which seems to be the example of the day, is rooted purely in game mechanics, rather than any realistic reason (why should an elf with dexterity 18 be able to only move 5 feet and swing a sword, in a single round ?) or reasons that are inherent to the setting. Hence, I see it as a limitation, because it conflicts and confines with common plausability and what we can reasonably expect.
loaba 08-17-05, 01:54 PM	I took your english education class last year, my name is [edited, because I don't want you knowing]. You can find me in alumni records. I have a question for you, are limits also impairments? I got into a debate about rules and laws. I said that rules and laws are limitations that tell you what you can and can not do. As such, they impair your ability to go beyond what is stated. An example of this being a speed limit. It tells you how fast you are allowed to go. Does that not also impair your ability to go faster than that? Thank you for taking the time from your day to address my concerns. Note that nowhere does the question mention that we are discussing a game world and its rules. This becomes vitally important when we see this part of the response… you are incorrect on the first definition. If the rule is already in place it does not impair you, as it is not changing. Here is a good one as well A limit can easily be defined as an impairment. She says “can”, and that is key, because “can” does not mean always. Also note that my friend makes no mention of his mantra that “rules are limitations and that all limitations are impairments, therefore rules are impairments”, and his question does not adequately represent my side of the argument.
loaba 08-17-05, 01:59 PM	It seems we are arguing from different approaches. You appear, if Im not too sleepy, tio say that since the rules define how game-reality works, there are no limitations. While this is an appealing argument, particular when people complain about level limits in AD&D ;), I dont quite agree. My approach is to look at what is possible and imaginable, and see how the rules handle this. The 5 foot step, which seems to be the example of the day, is rooted purely in game mechanics, rather than any realistic reason (why should an elf with dexterity 18 be able to only move 5 feet and swing a sword, in a single round ?) or reasons that are inherent to the setting. Hence, I see it as a limitation, because it conflicts and confines with common plausability and what we can reasonably expect. I am not saying that the [game] rules are not limiting, rather I am saying they are not by definition impairing.
geekmasterflash 08-17-05, 02:08 PM	Certainly the two are synonymous when using the example you have given. You are correct to say that a rule is an impairment, if it limits your ability to act contrary to said rule. One could make the case that impairments have to limit what you are already allowed to do in order to truly be an impairment. That is a fallacy. Impair, as per definition: "To cause to diminish, as in strength, value, or quality." If you are making the case that the rules/limitations/law is diminishing your ability to to act contrary you are correct. The second definition remains valid in the argument you are making, as a rule is a symptom reducing the quality of acting to the contrary. The fourth definition lends itself to your argument, as one can say it is damaging the ability to act contrary. The fifth definition lends itself completely to your side of the argument as a rule impairs by making contrary action futile and useless. I have to say you sound more correct. More weight is lent to what you are arguing than not. I can quote doctor all day too. Does context matter? Yes. What is the context here? Do rules impair? And to quote again.... You are correct to say that a rule is an impairment, if it limits your ability to act contrary to said rule. One definition says I am wrong, a bunch of others say I am right. More credit is given to my argument than yours. You can not dispel the other definitions because one agrees with you. I agree, by one definition you are correct. By a bunch of others, an expert opinion, and the thesarus, and I am more correct, as I have more support for my argument.
loaba 08-17-05, 02:16 PM	Well there ya go... A. Your question does not state my case B. She specifically says that you are not correct. Let me guess, your "friend" finally passed his sophomore Semantics course. :rolleyes: C. I can now see why this was the very first response in this thread. This is indeed a pointless argument. Basically, from a game mechanic PoV, I am correct.
Ongorth 08-17-05, 02:22 PM	You're an impairment.
crazysamaritan 08-17-05, 02:23 PM	C. I can now see why this was the very first response in this thread. This is indeed a pointless argument. Basically, from a game mechanic PoV, I am correct. and from the English Language PoV, you are Orange.
geekmasterflash 08-17-05, 02:25 PM	Dear Miss Dickinson, I have a follow up, if the rules in question are for a game are they still impairments? Such as me saying that "being able to only move 5ft instead of 10 ft is an impairment on my creativity" would I be correct? Yours sincerely, [name edited] Alumni, University of Northern Colorado ---------------------------------------------------- Dear [name edited], Everything I said still stands, if you are arguing that rules are impairments to acting contrary to those rules you are correct. The definitions I have given support that, except for one. That does not mean the others are to be discounted out of hand. As I said before, if your case is that rules/law/limits are impairments you are 100% correct. Most definitions support that view. Those that do not, are less than those that do. Making you more correct in that statement than otherwise. Yours sincerely, Barb Dickinson, Professor. English education, UNC. Yawn.
Vaalingrade Ashland 08-17-05, 02:26 PM	Also it's like the Laws of where you live. To the thieves, crooks, and general insane wackos, the laws are impairments. To everyone else they are necessary. Some may be a necessary evil but necessary nonetheless. Where I live, its illegal to engage intintimate relations while wearing socks. They are not all necessary. In game terms, the same goes, some are just stupid you either ignore them or try to fix them.
Ekranoplan 08-17-05, 02:26 PM	If everything is something, and nothing is something, then everything must be nothing Now on the topic at hand. The laws of physics impair my ability to jump off a building and survive. Since D&D is a game attempting to simulate life, a rule must exist that prevents you from jumping off a building and surviving. Yes, the rules are a limitation. But the limitations define the world. If there were no rules, it would all just be one giant blob where anything can happen. If the world we know it had no physical laws, there would be nothing. Many rules in D&D are there to simulate the effects of these physical laws and our concept of game balance. You dont want to be like The Blob, do you?
Gedrin 08-17-05, 02:43 PM	The rules in D&D are designed to define the abilities of charactes, and provide mechanisms for resolving contests between characters and other characters as well as the game world. Defining something limits it. For example, your character moves at 30' per round. You could want your character's movement rate to be blueberry, but I'm sorry, it's 30' / round. It is very useful, and enhances the game, for a character to have his movement limited to 30'/round, rather than being unlimited in any way. It's a lot like traffic laws. A system designed to resolve issues that arise when more than one person wants to make use of the same space. On red, you stop. On green, you go. There's some leeway on yellow, but be cautious. Does it always work? No. Do people break the rules? Yes. But It's probably good that we all know that red is stop and green is go and everyone in the same nation drives on the same side of the road. Occasionally, things get wierd and a police officer has to come out and direct things, but that's alright, we understand that occasionally, there are unusual situations. Think about the intersection of two busy city streets. Do the rules impair the ability of people to get where they're going? No. They help keep them safe, and often improve the flow of traffic. Think about the same intersection, without any rules, and the what a game with no rules would be like. We've all seen these games become traffic accidents, and I'd personally like to avoid that sort of thing. Rules that help you get where you are going are good rules. Rules that impair your ability to get where you are going, are not good rules, and should be changed. Some times rules seem to get in the way, but are actually designed to plug larger holes, and that gets complicated...but luckily, someone can come out and direct traffic if need be. As long as you can follow that, and everyone in your microcosm uses the same rules, you should probably be okay.
VinylVillichi 08-17-05, 03:11 PM	I like the traffic law analogy pretty well. It works. The RULES are the GAME. Whether you only have a few rules or whole libraries full of books of rules...if you don't have the rules you aren't playing the game. If someone wants to play D&D without rules...well, they aren't really playing D&D. They can be performing improvisational acting, gymnastics, or be watching a movie, or telling you a story, but they aren't playing D&D. D&D rules are sometimes open to interpretation, and we are invited to use or discard the rules at our whim. And, it is your friend's prerogative to consider all rules to be impairments. But the impairments that the DM chooses for his game must be abided by. The End.
a_psh 08-17-05, 03:52 PM	All rules aren't even limitations, I think. Rules in a game can be thought of as the equivalent of fantasy physics. Is it fair to say that QM and relativity actually *limit* us, for example? Physics tells us that we can't travel faster than the speed of light, for example. But is this a restriction? Without physical laws (err, the phenomena that we describe with physical laws, not the formalization of the laws themselves), we don't really exist on any level we can understand, necessarily. So, can a condition that, by its very nature, defines such basics things as matter and momentum, really limit us? If there wasn't a physical universe, would I somehow be more than what I am now? Or would I just not *be*? Similarly, does defining the game itself actually limit anything? Before there were Gygax and friends puttering around with the kernel of a system where you could be a wizard or a warrior, you could be... nothing. The game universe didn't exist. You had no manifestation in it. As such, the base rules of a game *allow* you to do things. Or, to use the jumping analogy, without gravity, air resistance, whatever preventing me from jumping as far as I want, would there even be such a thing as "jumping"?
loaba 08-17-05, 04:00 PM	^Uhh... You lost me? To address some spam - no, I don't think I am an impairment... To address some spam II - Orange? How do you figure? Certainly my friend has a valid PoV, but mine is no less so. Maybe that is why the majority of posters have indicated a war of semantics is actually a collosal waste of time.
a_psh 08-17-05, 04:03 PM	Defining something limits it. I disagree. To use your analogy, if I don't define movement, then movement is meaningless. Therefore, you could say your movement is infinity or blueberry or 30 feet per round. As long as movement itself is meaningless, your cognitive system or physical system or whatever just doesn't accept the existence of movement, anyway. The player can say he moves wherever he wants, but it doesn't matter anyway. I don't think that's different from movement not existing at all. Thus, adding a rule for movement actually *allows* you to move instead of restricting you, ne?
Pyritefoolsgold 08-17-05, 04:15 PM	You could say that the walls of your house are an impairment. And technically they are, because they prevent you from going outside without using the door. But without the walls you would just be outside. There's a reason we build houses, just like theirs a reason we use rules. If you don't like rules, then there is a form of D&D without them. It's called freeform roleplaying.
a_psh 08-17-05, 04:16 PM	^Uhh... You lost me? The first part of the argument. "Rules are limitations". Not always true. The rules of a game basically define a universe that you're playing in. Without them, that universe doesn't exist. You can't do *anything* in that universe because you're not playing in it. Thus, the rules actually enable you to do things rather than limiting you. For example, there's a rule in Monopoly that says you roll the dice to see how far you move. Without it, the idea of movement doesn't exist in the game. You can't suddenly move anywhere you want. You just can't move, period. So creating basic rules often adds a capability to your universe rather than removing it.
loaba 08-17-05, 04:21 PM	^Gotcha. The rules actually enable you to perform X activity.
Gedrin 08-17-05, 04:31 PM	a psh I suppose that you could say that defining something only places limits on your conception of that thing...but since most of the things we're dealing with in D&D are concepts or rules for a mental game, largely divorced from concrete reality...If I define movement to be 30' or less, it's 30' or less, and limited to that. I'm not saying that leaving it undefined makes it more functional or even useful at all. In large part I agree that having an idea "movement" that can be "30/rnd" or "blueberry", is pretty useless. However, if we do define it as 30/rnd, while that makes it much easier to judge and use as a tool in game, it also makes it "Not 45/rnd" and "Not blueberry". Usefull, but limited. It's just a matter of 30 /= C wher C = all numbers >30 and 30>. It's limited to it's definition. Not that this really matters, since it appears we both agree that rules exist to help the game and make it work.
nyysjan 08-17-05, 04:43 PM	rules in DnD do limit and impaire and so does gravity without gravity we would be thrown into outer space :P i really like limits and impairments when they keep me alive :D
a_psh 08-17-05, 04:56 PM	... it appears we both agree that rules exist to help the game and make it work. That is most definitely the only thing that matters.
adderworks 08-17-05, 05:11 PM	So, I have to ask.. When are non-technical models in literature subject to technical rules from grammar? Speaking as a player, Oxford English is not part of any DND book that I know......... "Quick! Pass me the dictionary!", has never been said at my game table, anyways. Another thing, how can you use the hindering concept in anything dealing with people that sit down at a game table by choice. By default, you operate within a set boundry that is self-imposed. How is that a core function of the rules? If you do not like the game, you are free to walk away from the game table.
loaba 08-17-05, 08:48 PM	By default, when you sit down at the DnD table, you're accepting the rules of the game, whether those rules are straight out of the book, or tweaked by the DM matters not. In order to be creative, you need that rules framework from which to work. Game rules don't necessarily limit creativity, they can actually enhance it.
Milandros 08-17-05, 09:21 PM	Who said that the rules can't both impair and enable at the same time? The monopoly dice rule used earlier is a good example. The rules state that you roll two dice and move forward that many squares. It enables you to move forward; it enables the game to be played. Simultaneously, it prevents you from moving 30 squares, or rolling 273 dice and declaring that you win, because it's a Thursday. Except it doesn't, because you can always break the rule, and cheat. Since game rules can be ignored at will - you most definitely do not have to accept them, you can always stop playing and then they no longer apply to you - you could argue that the rules are a voluntary frame of reference rather than enablers or impairers. Or you can argue that they are both, simultaneously. It's a perspective thing. Do the rules allow you to move 30', or prevent you from moving 50'? Yes. Of course, this whole argument is pointless... :)
loaba 08-17-05, 09:32 PM	I'm not sure I would say monopoly movement impairs your ceativity. I mean, doesn't everybody have a strat with that game? You like one set of streets, there's always someone who wants to be the baby-blue slum-lord... The rules of Monopoly force you to be creative in your business decisions (if only due to the capricious nature of the dice).
Zinegata 08-17-05, 09:36 PM	I'm probably going to get into another Matrix analogy, but what the heck, it works ^_^. "Rules" aren't exclusive to D&D alone. They aren't even exclusive to games alone. Rules are in fact present in every aspect of our society and existence. Laws exist that impose sanctions against actions like theft and murder. Someone cannot just steal things in our society and get away with it. Even our physical interactions with the world around us is dictated by rules. The Laws of physics, for example, prevents us from ignoring gravity and simply fly around freely. It's a Law of Physics. It's a Rule. It limits us from simply flying around. But it's there, and there's really nothing we can do about it. That's just how the universe works. In D&D, rules are present because they define how the universe works. Like in the real world, humans cannot fly without aid in D&D because the Laws of Physics are also implemented as rules within the D&D game. If your character jumps off a cliff in D&D, your character will fall to the ground because of the rules on gravity implemented in the D&D game. It is a limitation, true, as characters won't be able to simply fly without aid, but it's how the D&D universe works. It's not really something to complain about. It's something you just have to live with, just as how you live with rules in the real world. Being merely a simulation however, one cannot expect D&D to conform fully to the real world. It may be possible, for example, for a human to attack more than five times in six seconds using a single sword. However, the rules dictate that five is the maximum number of attacks possible in a single six-second round (without TWF and other effects like Haste). Is this a limitation then? Yes, it is a limitation, but it is a reasonable one, just like the rules governing the real world. Remember how in the original Matrix Movie, one of the characters pondered if the machines really know how food tastes? He speculates that the machine may have no idea how food really tastes, which is why everything tastes like chicken. It frees the Matrix from having to worry about simulating tastes, and people don't really seem to mind or notice it anyway. In D&D, likewise, the game designers don't really know how a Level 21 Fighter will be able to perform in the real world. There is no such thing as a "Level 21 Fighter" in the real world in the first place, at least not ones that gain "levels", "feats", or "+1 Base Attack Bonus every level". All they can do is to simulate it as best they can, even if it's not really exactly how it works in the real world. Most gamers don't really mind or notice such oversights anyway, just as how the people connected to the Matrix don't mind that everything tastes like chicken. Thus, rules are indeed limitations, but it's something that people really shouldn't mind too much. We live in a world that has its own rules and limitations. Why should a game be different?
Milandros 08-17-05, 09:39 PM	If one wants to be really, really petty about it, everything that exists is an impairment to something. The desk I'm sat at is preventing me from seeing my feet, for example. The air I breath prevents me from dying. This message board prevents me from going to bed. ;)
loaba 08-17-05, 09:47 PM	I have already stated that DnD rules are indeed limiting factors, I just don't see where they are actual impairments to creativity.
Lord Ian Stark 08-17-05, 09:58 PM	I have already stated that DnD rules are indeed limiting factors, I just don't see where they are actual impairments to creativity. For some reason I see this post reminding me of Lambchop singing the Song that Never Ends.
loaba 08-17-05, 10:01 PM	Probably...
gered 08-17-05, 11:22 PM	Hola everyone, have a question concerning DnD and the English language. A friend has determined that all rules are limitations and that all limitations are impairments, therefore rules are impairments. Um, no All rules are not limitations. All limitations are not impairments. Therefore he's wrong. A rule could allow you to (for example) kill someone and be legally free from prosecution. A limitation that prevents you from smoking doesn't impair anything. Logically we can therefore see that his statements are not automatically true. Now, are they even specifically true to D&D. Well, that depends. If you had for example Data (the android from Star Trek) as your DM and he could deduce the success or failure of this imaginary character by simply correlating what his abilities are compared to with what would reasonably happen then the rules are an impairment. But since the players have to trust that the DM is not just screwing them over through a mistake or malice, the rules create a very good environment for role-playing.