Fantasy roleplaying rules, realised as a corpus juris.
The agenda was written around 2018-08-23. Some of the text comes from the Maastricht ‘18 rules.
We seek to envision a compelling fantasy world together, and furthermore envision characters within that world with the potential for meeting adventurous challenges. Our goal is to apply our own minds to solving those challenges, free to do anything we can imagine to succeed, constrained by everything that we would have constrain those characters.
We will not plan the outcomes of challenges beforehand. Nor will we allow any preference over specific outcomes to sway the proceedings while we are in session. Instead, we will view every situation like so: i) what is given, ii) what do I wish to achieve, iii) how can I go about it, and iv) how would that go?
We implement the creative agenda by agreeing on a common set of rules and procedure. Whereas the act of building a shared imagined space is one of never-ending complexity, the rules will never be complete. The guiding principles for this process is that of argument: from the constitution itself, or from precedent. Rules can be changed or broken with support from more foundational principles.
Rule changes can be exploratory and probationary: an argument is made that a particular goal could be realised by using a rule, and it is adopted; after a time’s trial, it is found that it did not realise the goal, so it is abandoned. All rules so adopted, both the ones later abandoned and the ones still remaining, form the body of precedent.
We wish for this game to be enjoyable for us who choose to partake. Secondarily, we seek to make it a positive influence on ourselves, by showing us new experiences, skills and knowledge.
We strive to be clear, honest and fair towards each other about the game’s nature, its purpose, its organisation, this constitution, and the social and temporal footprint of it and its sessions.
Those who put time and effort into the game have a responsibility of upholding these principles. Those who take that responsibility have a right be heard if there is need to compromise between different participants’ preferences.