Interpreting Rules -- Procedure vs. Directive

[wotmaniac]

I happened upon this article, and it got me thinking: Are Directives "rules"?
(this is far from the first time I've thought about this; it just so happens that the article is simply serving as the catalyst for this thread)

The reason this is an issue for me is exemplified by the CharOp culture, and the tortured logic used to get to "RAW".
Is RAW just procedure? According to CharOp, this seems to be the case. However, I posit that directives are also "rules".

Of course, before this question can be answered, you first must make a determination of what the rules "mean".
First is separating the 2 distinct varieties of "fluff": directive and imagery. In my experience, one of the main hurdles players encounter in making this distinction is the fact that authors oftentimes don't make clear their intent on where that line is supposed to be drawn ... which relegates that role to (often biased) inference.

Once that is done, there are, essentially, 3 basic approaches (sure, there are intermediate gradients, as well as exceptions; but these are the primary benchmarks):
a) procedure is paramount; and the fluff is simply (dismissible) suggested context (which involves skipping that first step -- which seems to happen all the damn time);
b) fluff is paramount; and the procedure is simply a suggested tool with which to implement said fluff (often involves also skipping that first step, just with completely different ends as option "a");
c) procedure and directive is inextricably linked -- without one, the other is meaningless.

For the most part, I'm a proponent of option "c".

The one example that immediately jumps in to my head 3.5's Leadership feat.

The procedure is pretty simple:
- select the feat IAW feat selection rules
- apply the "benefit" in the feat's description, within the parameters of the accompanying chart
- Profit.
However, I dare say that this is not the end-all be-all. I've had several "discussions" over the legitimacy of a Cohort being able to select the Leadership feat. My position is that Cohorts cannot take Leadership (or, more specifically, once they take that feat, they are no longer an eligible candidate for Cohort status under the Leadership feat).
And here's where I get that:

[p.104, under the section heading "Cohorts"]
Cohorts are people who take on a subservient role. Cohorts are not leaders.
[...]
[p.106, under the section heading "PCs as leaders"]
A character of 6th level or higher can start attracting cohorts (see page 104) and followers (see page 105) by taking the Leadership feat.

From the surrounding text, it's pretty clear that the Leadership feat was intended as a means with which to mechanically codify what it means to be a leader. As such, that bit about cohorts not being leaders is a directive. If a directive is a "rule", then Cohorts cannot take Leadership (well, not while remaining a Cohort, that is).

Now, before anybody goes flying off the handle over my interpretation of Leadership, please keep in mind that it was simply an example only meant to clarify my point -- don't miss the forest for the trees.


So, what do you guys think?

[Username17]

I don't actually agree with the premise of the linked article. Directive and Procedure are words that have actual meaning in the real world and you can't just shit out your own definition and have that make any sense.

A Procedure is a process that starts at an input and tells you what action to take. A Directive is a target that tells you an endpoint you are supposed to get to and does not specify a methodology of how to get there. That's what those words really mean. They don't mean... whatever the hell that article was trying to make them mean.

It really didn't help that all of the guy's examples of Directives were weird bullshit indie games that no one has heard of. So even within the context that I reject his characterization as being distinct from the actual meaning of the claimed words, I'm still not sure exactly what the fuck he was even trying to torture those words into.

-Username17

[wotmaniac]

Um ..... Fair enough. The guy is a Forgeite, so that would explain his propensity for making up his own definitions on the spot.
In my defense, I only carried over his terminology so as to maintain .... consistency? (yeah, I got nothing .... I wasn't really trying to critique the article; I was just going with the general thrust of what appeared to be his intent)

So, give me more appropriate words, and I will use them (I think that the rest of my post makes clear my intent).

[squirrelloid]

I'm going to use 'rules' and 'fluff', since I can't be bothered to find better names for them.

The problem for him arises when the rules don't match the fluff. I mean, 4e assures you that it's a game of epic stories, but the rules don't deliver. Its not that you can even sit down and agree that you should be telling epic stories around the MMO mechanics, because those same mechanics turn the whole world that isn't designated as team monster into friendlies who you can't really do anything with. Someone piss you off and you want to duel them? Too bad, they aren't on team monster, you can't stab them.

Basically, the only person who can tell a story in 4e is the DM, and the players have no creative control because the game doesn't *let them do anything* that isn't specifically scripted. I mean, honestly, you can't even *roleplay* effectively in such an rule set, and the moment you do you're MTPing and ignoring the rules. All of them. So when 4e tells you its a roleplaying game, its *lying*. Its a tactical combat simulation with some random ineffective subsystems cobbled on that suck (skill challenges ). They can give you all the fluff they want about what you're supposed to be doing, but if the rules don't provide some way to realize that fluff, it's just empty language and best ignored. (Or play another game which allows that).

(To be clear, 3.x doesn't really incentivize roleplaying either, but it doesn't *prohibit it* like 4e does. 3.x lets you simulate an entire world with the provided mechanics, albeit badly in a lot of ways, and thus the players are allowed to have agency because everything from stabbing the friendly king in the face to magically constructing a tower of black iron in a day are all covered by and permitted by the rules).

[ishy]

wind wall[/url]]Arrows and bolts are deflected upward and miss

Does this mean that in your games Wind Wall deflects lightning bolts and acid arrows?

[wotmaniac]

wind wall[/url]]Arrows and bolts are deflected upward and miss

Does this mean that in your games Wind Wall deflects lightning bolts and acid arrows?

What is that even supposed to mean?
No. It means that when there is (for example) a page-and-a-half dedicated to describing a particular concept, and then they toss on a related feat under the same sub-chapter heading, embedded inline with the rest of the text, then just maybe -- call me crazy -- maybe that 1.5 pages might be relevant when implementing said feat. Maybe that 2100 words of exposition actually had a point other than simply inflating the author's per-word paycheck. Assuming that, then maybe we can go ahead and assume that those 2100 words were actually intended to not only provide some flavorful context, but also to guide how the resulting feat should be implemented. If the Leadership feat appears in the section titled "PCs as leaders", and the accompanying cohort is explicitly described as "not a leader"; then it might be safe to assume that you can't chain feat-bind an entire county in to being party members.

Hopefully this clarifies the thrust of my argument.

Anyways, that was but one example. I could spend pages detailing more examples -- but I'm not trying to argue specific examples, I'm putting forth a general premise: depending on the larger context, descriptive text can be tantamount to "rules" on equal footing with the rules mechanics for (for example) using Power Attack or casting Magic Missile.

[fectin]

Using the terms as defined there, with respect to mechanical operations, procedures are unambiguous; directives are ambiguous.

Directives as presented describe purpose and intent. Procedure describes actual function, and is entirely divorced from the directives it nominally operates under.

The real question is not whether directives are "rules," but whether the procedures defining play operate in accordance with or support of the vision outlined with the directives. For example, from how 4E is described here, the directives and procedures do not match: the procedure says: "summon the endbringer, split the world in half, and blow all foes into oblivion," and the procedure is "push one target three spaces." Arguing about which is "rules" both requires you to define rules, and is completely pointless.

[silva]

I agree with the OP. Both "Procedures" and "Directives" are rules, and the ideal game should have them inextricably linked and equally important.

Sadly though, it seems most rpgs assume the players already know how to play the game and end up just giving generic "advice".

Apocalypse World and OD&D are games where both the procedures and directives are inextricably linked. While Vampire and D&D4e are the opposite.

[wotmaniac]

Using the terms as defined there, with respect to mechanical operations, procedures are unambiguous; directives are ambiguous.

Going back to my example: what is ambiguous about "cohorts are not leaders"? This looks like a straight-forward imperative declaration. Given the context, this doesn't seem ambiguous at all. Unless you are extending ambiguity out to include everything not embedded in the feat itself (which I think I can buy in to). However, the paragraph that actually contains the feat goes so far as to directly cross-reference specific sub-headings and page numbers; so ... wtf?
(sorry I keep going back to the same example; to me, it seems like such an obvious one, so I'm just going with it. I can submit others if need be.)

Directives as presented describe purpose and intent. Procedure describes actual function, and is entirely divorced from the directives it nominally operates under.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I don't think that the list of procedures and the list of directives were necessarily meant to be complementary; he was just throwing out random examples.

The real question is not whether directives are "rules," but whether the procedures defining play operate in accordance with or support of the vision outlined with the directives. For example, from how 4E is described here, the directives and procedures do not match: the procedure directive says: "summon the endbringer, split the world in half, and blow all foes into oblivion," and the procedure is "push one target three spaces." Arguing about which is "rules" both requires you to define rules, and is completely pointless.

bolded = FTFY

See, in that 4e example, I wouldn't call that a "directive"; I'd call that "imagery". Which brings me to one of the points I'm trying to make about fluff -- not all fluff is created equal; and because of shitty technical writing, it is left completely up to the player to somehow divine the intended distinction between "imagery", "advice", and "directive". Sure, context helps; but any contextual aid that we may be able to cobble together is often rendered useless by ineffectual verbiage.

You know what, let me go ahead and throw out another example: The "Adaptation" paragraph included in the description of many 3.5 PrCs. As far as I'm concerned, due to the context, this is "directive"; however, do to the extraordinarily weak verbiage, it'd be hard for me to fault someone for believing this to be simply "advice". So, this would also be an example of ineffectual technical writing failing to clearly demonstrate what the point of a piece of text is.
Of course, I think part of the issue lies with the writers being pansy-asses and trying to be all things to all people, causing them to go out of their way to avoid "telling people how to play, or wrongbadfun". In which case, I refer everybody to the 2nd line of my sig block.

Sadly though, it seems most rpgs assume the players already know how to play the game and end up just giving generic "advice".

This was actually addressed when I posted this over on minmax:

What is needed, instead, is a set of interpretive principles.

Which, I guess in a way, I'm trying to sort out.

[hogarth]

With regards to the linked article, he has a point (albeit a pretty obvious one): it's possible to play a game "wrong" (i.e. not as intended by the author) if you obey the game rules but ignore the author's suggestions about setting, plot, characters, etc.

For instance, if you used the Mutants & Masterminds rules to play dungeon crawls and ignored the suggestions on how a superhero game is supposed to work, then it would be stupid to complain that M&M is a bad superhero game.

Of course:
(a) that's bloody obvious, and
(b) sometimes playing a game "wrong" is more fun than playing it the "right" way, so if you want to ignore all the suggestions, knock yourself out.

[silva]

What Hogarth said.

In AW/DW, if you dont follow the GMs principles and moves, youre simply not playing the game as intended. Period.

[Username17]

Going back to my example: what is ambiguous about "cohorts are not leaders"?

Since all of this thread is just you blowing smoke up peoples' asses so you can try to get people on your side in a pointless internet argument on another forum where you are taking the position "No Leadership Chains", let's just go straight to it. There is lots of ambiguity in any three word declaration, because every single declaration becomes shorn of context when it gets sufficiently small.

Your position is basically retarded, because it's basically the same thing as taking the immediately preceding sentence: "Cohorts are people who take on a subservient role." and claiming that it somehow means that Cohorts have to submit to people other than their leader. Which is just as stupid as that thing you just said! Because the context is that they are describing the relationship between the character and the cohort, and not the relationship between the cohort and any third party out there in the world.

Now as it happens, you're also obviously wrong about your core point, because Leadership Chains is totally a thing that happens in real examples in actual official books. But even within the narrow context of interpretation of that limited passage, you'd basically have to be on drugs to think your claim had the slightest ounce of merit. The thing you're blowing way out of proportion is actually just describing the relationship between two people, which may or may not be mediated by a feat (according to the DMG passage in question, you do not need to have the Leadership feat to have a cohort). And it gives or implies no restrictions at all on what feats either character is allowed to take or what relationships either character is allowed to have with any other character.

-Username17

[RadiantPhoenix]

Leadership chains are generally how civilizations form. If you don't allow leadership chains, you probably don't have kingdoms or cities. Every village has at least three separate leaders.


Truly tremendous civilizations occur when your 6th level followers have 21 leadership and thus have their own 6th level followers (with leadership). (You can do that, right? )

[hyzmarca]

I'd point out that without leadership chains it is literally impossible to have any hierarchical organization with more than 165 members.

Since hierarchical organizations with more than 165 members exist in D&D, the rule is obviously wrong.

[hogarth]

I'd point out that without leadership chains it is literally impossible to have any hierarchical organization with more than 165 members.

Or an organization where a relatively inexperienced politician gives orders to a veteran soldier.

Wait, are we still talking about the Leadership (tm) feat?

[Schleiermacher]

I'd like to offer the contrary opinion that the Leadership feat is a piece of bullshit and it is manifestly possible to have any kind of organization with or without it. Preferably without it.

If you seriously contend that it describes the only possible means by which hierarchical relationships can form in-setting, so that e.g no leader of any hierarchy can ever be less than 6th level, then... well, that's a position which I can't call anything but insane.

[Foxwarrior]

Keep in mind, Schleiermacher, a Gnoll Barbarian who was born only ten years ago, hunts Tarrasques in the wilderness, and studies the pictures in books on elocution in his spare time (cross-class ranks in Diplomacy) can be better at Diplomacy than an Elven Expert who spends all of his three hundred years of life bribing politicians and calming down bar fights.

It's not inconceivable to suggest that 5th-level people are simply physically incapable of knowing how to lead in such a world.

Although I am a bit confused: does it actually say somewhere that only people with the Leadership feat can hire peasants?

[RadiantPhoenix]

Although I am a bit confused: does it actually say somewhere that only people with the Leadership feat can hire peasants?

No, but that's just getting them to do a job, not quite the same thing as just sort of having them "around"

Leadership isn't the only way to do things, but given that you can allegedly max out your leadership score at any level at which you can have the feat, it seems like the simplest method of generating a large organization.

Given that only your cohort actually adventures with you, it doesn't even seem too overpowered -- it's pretty much turnip economy and bureaucrats.

[hyzmarca]

Although I am a bit confused: does it actually say somewhere that only people with the Leadership feat can hire peasants?

No, but that's just getting them to do a job, not quite the same thing as just sort of having them "around"

If you can hire them, then you can hire them to be around.

And if they're around, you can have them go first through that doorway that looks suspiciously like a sphere of annihilation.

[wotmaniac]

With regards to the linked article, he has a point (albeit a pretty obvious one): it's possible to play a game "wrong" (i.e. not as intended by the author) if you obey the game rules but ignore the author's suggestions about setting, plot, characters, etc.

For instance, if you used the Mutants & Masterminds rules to play dungeon crawls and ignored the suggestions on how a superhero game is supposed to work, then it would be stupid to complain that M&M is a bad superhero game.

Aside from being obvious, it's just too general to be even remotely useful.
Unless I'm reading too much in to it, though, I think that he just meant it as a jumping-off point for the reader .... which is what I'm trying to do.
Of course, at this point, I still have only the vaguest of ideas of where to go with it.

In AW/DW, if you dont follow the GMs principles and moves, youre simply not playing the game as intended. Period.

As much as I hate AW, this is actually a fantastic example. The GM principles and moves are at least as important to the game as the procedure(s) involving making a roll+hard. In AW, much of the non-imagery descriptive text is explicitly "rules".
Unfortunately, AW is an anomaly in the general sludge that passes for technical writing in most RPGs.

---

Jesus jumping on a pogo stick -- I'm sorry I ever brought up leadership. If y'all want to argue over leadership, make a new thread (hell, depending on my mood, I may even wade in to it). From here out, I'll try to use other examples ..... actually, I'd like to be able to not even worry about needing real examples; but considering the nature of the subject matter, that might be kinda difficult.

Since all of this thread is just you blowing smoke up peoples' asses so you can try to get people on your side in a pointless internet argument on another forum where you are taking the position "No Leadership Chains", let's just go straight to it.

No. You're just flat wrong. No, Frank, stop it -- I said that you are wrong; just accept it and move on.
Aside from the fact that I haven't even thought about a leadership argument in, like, 3-4 years, there's also this:

Anyways, that was but one example. I could spend pages detailing more examples -- but I'm not trying to argue specific examples, I'm putting forth a general premise:

(sorry I keep going back to the same example; to me, it seems like such an obvious one, so I'm just going with it. I can submit others if need be.)
[...]

What is needed, instead, is a set of interpretive principles.

Which, I guess in a way, I'm trying to sort out.

I also presented an example of a piece of text that would fall under "fluff that is pretending to be rules" and/or vice-versa. Are we gonna argue over the exact specifics of that example, as well? (good god, I hope not) Or can we just accept it for what it is -- some "thing" that is simply meant to illustrate/clarify a concept, and nothing more.
Within the context of this thread, I actually give i÷0 fucks about what anyone thinks about my particular interpretation of a specific parcel of sourcebook text; and I give an equal amount of fucks about anyone else's interpretation of the same. This is about interpretive principle and methodology; the discussion of which doesn't even have to be constrained to existing literature. If you actually want to be relevant and/or constructive, and you want to reference particular examples, you need to do so within the context of the overall premise and intent of the OP.
You're 0-and-2 in this thread -- are you going to actually try to be relevant and constructive, or are you just gonna be a contrarian? Conversely, if you think that this topic lacks enough merit to even warrant discussion, then *ta-da* you can simply ignore it (it really is a very simple and easy thing to do -- I do it all the time)
I use to expect more of you. For shame, Frank. For shame.

[hogarth]

Unless I'm reading too much in to it, though, I think that he just meant it as a jumping-off point for the reader [..]

He starts with something that's true but obvious (if you ignore the suggestions -- excuse me "directives" -- regarding how to play, you're not playing the game as intended), but then shoots himself in the foot by saying things like"Be clear that it is literally rules and not vague mumble-advice" and "You might need to explain how other types of directives don’t work with your game" that translate to "Stop playing my game wrong!"

Sorry, Bud -- you might have to accept the fact that people might have more fun ignoring your vague mumble-advice (which is a great way to describe "directives").

[Username17]

Conversely, if you think that this topic lacks enough merit to even warrant discussion, then *ta-da* you can simply ignore it

Or... I could just put you on ignore. I think I'll do that.

-Username17

[wotmaniac]

Or... I could just put you on ignore. I think I'll do that.

it's about time.

[shadzar]

words that have actual meaning in the real world and you can't just shit out your own definition and have that make any sense.

agree. now if only someone would tell WotC that D&D might stand a better chance... "bloodied"

[wotmaniac]

Alright, shifting the topic just a bit ....

Unless I'm reading too much in to it, though, I think that he just meant it as a jumping-off point for the reader [..]

He starts with something that's true but obvious (if you ignore the suggestions -- excuse me "directives" -- regarding how to play, you're not playing the game as intended), but then shoots himself in the foot by saying things like"Be clear that it is literally rules and not vague mumble-advice" and "You might need to explain how other types of directives don’t work with your game" that translate to "Stop playing my game wrong!"

Sorry, Bud -- you might have to accept the fact that people might have more fun ignoring your vague mumble-advice (which is a great way to describe "directives").

I whole-heartedly agree that any given play group should feel free to use a particular game any which way they feel like ..... they should just be prepared for and accept the fact that they may end up producing some undesirable results -- and that they won't have any place to bitch when things do go wrong.
Point being -- I run in to arguments all the time (both at table and on the web) that basically boil down to people not taking this fact in to account. And this includes differences in interpretation.
For example, we have mountains of records from game designers (namely from various editions of d&d) that give us plenty of insight to the inside of their minds. Fluff text in the actual game(s) aside, just from various articles, playtest journals, interviews, personal websites, etc., we actually do know how their brains work; and we also know that there are various rules (even the basic function of the system(s) as a whole) that were written with a certain bias towards a certain kind of play.

Something that I always keep in mind when perusing a particular piece of RPG material is the mind of the author. Also remember that what you're reading was most likely written by someone who:
1) is just a fanboy that decided that writing for RPG for a living would be really cool; without consideration for whether or not it is a viable life choice (and let's face it - economically, it usually isn't) ;
2) if they went to college, they most likely are someone who thought it was a good idea to through tens-of-thousands of dollars at a B.-fucking-A. (usually english lit or some shit)
Point being, these aren't exactly the best-of-the-best that the world has to offer -- if they had any real writing chops, they'd probably have a different day-job/career path. (of course, that's just a hunch)

All that being said, does anyone really have a valid position when they bitch about a game that doesn't do what it wasn't meant to do?