Comment on “The Frame in which Rules are Deconstructed”

I'm having trouble getting what I want to say into words, but I'll try anyway

First I want to point out that some programming languages (and thus, games built with them) greatly reduce the amount of work required to edit and update the game as it goes. LISP, in particular, can have new code rewritten on the fly and added into the running program, with the new code used thereafter. While this still doesn't make it possible for a large game-design corporation to edit one's own particular copy of the game, it does mean that a solo hobbyist, running some kind of D&D world program, could fix small issues as they arise, or fix larger ones week-to-week just like writing rules in prose.

Where the issue with computer games comes in, of course, is that if you don't have a rule it can't be enforced by the computer. But if we view such a digital game world as working to support the human DM, then we can simply have the DM manually enforce any rules which can't or shouldn't be turned over to the game's code. And if a rule is broken, or if the situation calls for a new ruling, the DM ought to be able to tell the computer to ignore the coded rule, so that he or she can take the reins on that particular point.

Maybe this is tangential to what you're talking about here but it's the kind of thing I keep coming back to.

More on topic: I can't tell from the posts how one might formulate the rules that apply to a DM. But I'm sure that you are *not* saying that, for example, the DM must, for example, create all NPCs by rolling 3d6 (or whatever) for their ability scores, because that's a rule for character generation.

I feel like we've gone round and round about DM "code of conduct" before. Ways in which the DM can and cannot be permitted to act, to produce good gaming. Are you talking about that here?