ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Originally posted by zorven
If we had DG3 rules with the additions of definitions for leader responsibilities and what a legal instruction is, would you still consider that a loose ruleset? Or would that then be a strict ruleset?
My answer to that is you still have a loose instruction set.
You are defining what needs to be done, not how. Look through DG2, there is a lot of "how" in that ruleset. DG3 has minimal "how", and minimal "what".
Let my try an example to explain this, and I'll use a current discussion - stopping a game play session.
Under a loose ruleset, we say that the DP must fulfill all defined responsibilities, primarily to follow all legal instructions. There is nothing about stopping a game play session in the rules. Official A, having reviewed the situation and had a discussion, has posted an instruction that should event 'B' occur, the session should be stopped. The ruleset has defined the "what" - follow legal instructions. The official created the "how" - stop the session if B occurs.
Under a strict ruleset, we would have rules defining when a session will stop. Official A doesn't have to review the situation, or have a discussion. When event 'B' occurs, the ruleset demands the session will stop. The ruleset has defined the "how" - stop the session if B occurs.
Although highly simplified, and taken to an extreme, this is my view of the differences between a loose and a strict ruleset.
-- Ravensfire