Neither instantiates the general form you have suggested, of extrapolating a consequence from a description. The second is a statement of a prohibition. Penalty: Level 3 imprisonment (20 years maximum)."Įach of these two rules has a different syntax: the first is a conditional definition of a particular offence. ![]() Person in circumstances of gross violence. Here's a rule of law from the Victorian Crimes Act: "A person must not, without lawful excuse, intentionally cause serious injury to another Here's a rule of law from the Australian Criminal Code: "A person commits an offence if the person engages in a terrorist act. ![]() Some scholars think there is utility in comparing rules across domains of human activity (eg Marmor thinks games and law can both be looked at via the relationship between rules and conventions). Wittgenstein spilled much ink arguing that this is misguided, and that the proper question is something like "What does it mean for a practice to exemplify a rule?" And that's without having regard to literature in non-Plato influenced traditions, in which I'm less well educated and so which I am less confident to comment on.įraming "what are rules?" as an ontological inquiry is fraught. The literature I'm pretty familiar with goes back to Kant, but there is obviously a literature that predates that which goes back at least to Plato. There is an extensive literature on what rules are. Types of fictional content does not a playstyle make. It's a you problem rather than a using a game that is structurally incapable of delivering the sort of experience you are looking for problem. This stuff matters a great deal to me because these deceptive claims of flexibility are used to sow doubt into people like the younger version of myself to make them believe that they are just not good enough or what they want is just impossible. ![]() Play diversity under one structure of play gets magnified to the extreme while other structures of play get treated as these cute little bespoke games which to me is the height of elitism / snobbery. At least no more different than 2 games of Burning Wheel (which exhibits the same sort of diversity in the type of fiction being explored).įundamentally this is part and parcel of established norms and the default structure of play being treated as privileged (being described with words like organic whereas other sorts of play get derisively labeled as artificial or bespoke). We're talking about different sorts of fiction. We're still fundamentally talking about the same sort of structural approach to setting design, situation design, serial exploration through the setting and action resolution. I find your framing (hopefully unintentionally) deceptive here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |