pawsplay
Hero
Posted because I am aware we don't all speak the same language around here, and I thought it was an interesting topic.
Philosophy of Rules Interpretation
I believe rules interpretation is a matter of applying general principles to particular contexsts. As much as possible, I prefer rules interpretations that adhere to the letter of the rules and result in consistent results time after time.
Things that make an interpretation good:
It is a natural and intuitive reading of the rules as written.
A decision can be reached quickly when several variables are compared, and recursions in the course of resolving a particular case are rare.
The outcomes of particular cases tend toward the desired outcome in the greatest majority of particular cases. In other words, I am happy with the rule being the rule.
The interpretation allows for further room for interpretation when unforeseen circumstances arise.
Things that make an interpretation bad:
It requires a tortuous reading of the text.
Many cases cause a chain reaction of rules lookups, such that resolving any particular case is tedious or perhaps even difficult.
The interpretation causes the majority of particular cases to be resolved in a way with which I am unhappy.
The interpretation only works in a narrowly considered aspect of the rules, and does not get along well with other rulings.
Consideration of the Algorithmic Method, or Rules Interpretations From First Principles
This is the method of looking up a rule, applying all other known rules and definitions, and determing what the result is. I consider it a flawed method for a variety of reasons:
Many rules are not clearly written in the first place.
The rules are not actually first principles; they are rules designed to emulate an imagined game world. The physics of that game world are the first principles, not the abstractions intended to emulate them. If an interpretation is not sensible in this perspective, it is wrong.
The ease of interpretation for a particular case can vary enormously, and independently of how rare, strange, or supposedly complex the issue is. A dozen rules may have to be referenced to determine the answer to a question like, is an unarmed strike a simple weapon?
The rules undoubtedly contain contradictions.
The rules undoubtedly do not have a rule for every situation, even every easily imagined situation.
Consideration of the Results Method, or Rules Interpretations by Fiat
In this method, rules are interpeted to mean what you think they should mean. Apart from the problem of being arbitrary in principle, I consider this a poor method for a number of reasons:
The rules are hardly rules at all, bringing into question the rationale for using more or different rules than desired.
Two different outcomes might result in rules rationales, that then necessitate other outcomes for the sake of consistency, which are undesired. This results in a contradiction of the rationale for this method.
General principles are difficult to state; in practice, the particular cases become easily stated, while the general case becomes convoluted, a poor economy of logic.
Rationale of My Method
My method has as its principles:
Game world logic
Consistency
Concensus
Interpretation from the written text
Intepretation from game design
Universality, that is, intepretations that create a basis for other useful interpreations
The ability to blend the rules as written with on the fly rulings
Ease of use
Accessibility of rules through simple intuituion
Acceptance of ambiguity and "fuzzy logic"
A dialetic between general principles and desired outcomes; that is, the rules are subject to revision or reinterpretation when desired
A realization that the purpose of the rules is to move play forward, not to operate according to my personal whims or arbitrary logical machinery
Provisionality
Acceptance that the same word may be used with a different meaning in two places
Ideally: simplicity and elegance
Philosophy of Rules Interpretation
I believe rules interpretation is a matter of applying general principles to particular contexsts. As much as possible, I prefer rules interpretations that adhere to the letter of the rules and result in consistent results time after time.
Things that make an interpretation good:
It is a natural and intuitive reading of the rules as written.
A decision can be reached quickly when several variables are compared, and recursions in the course of resolving a particular case are rare.
The outcomes of particular cases tend toward the desired outcome in the greatest majority of particular cases. In other words, I am happy with the rule being the rule.
The interpretation allows for further room for interpretation when unforeseen circumstances arise.
Things that make an interpretation bad:
It requires a tortuous reading of the text.
Many cases cause a chain reaction of rules lookups, such that resolving any particular case is tedious or perhaps even difficult.
The interpretation causes the majority of particular cases to be resolved in a way with which I am unhappy.
The interpretation only works in a narrowly considered aspect of the rules, and does not get along well with other rulings.
Consideration of the Algorithmic Method, or Rules Interpretations From First Principles
This is the method of looking up a rule, applying all other known rules and definitions, and determing what the result is. I consider it a flawed method for a variety of reasons:
Many rules are not clearly written in the first place.
The rules are not actually first principles; they are rules designed to emulate an imagined game world. The physics of that game world are the first principles, not the abstractions intended to emulate them. If an interpretation is not sensible in this perspective, it is wrong.
The ease of interpretation for a particular case can vary enormously, and independently of how rare, strange, or supposedly complex the issue is. A dozen rules may have to be referenced to determine the answer to a question like, is an unarmed strike a simple weapon?
The rules undoubtedly contain contradictions.
The rules undoubtedly do not have a rule for every situation, even every easily imagined situation.
Consideration of the Results Method, or Rules Interpretations by Fiat
In this method, rules are interpeted to mean what you think they should mean. Apart from the problem of being arbitrary in principle, I consider this a poor method for a number of reasons:
The rules are hardly rules at all, bringing into question the rationale for using more or different rules than desired.
Two different outcomes might result in rules rationales, that then necessitate other outcomes for the sake of consistency, which are undesired. This results in a contradiction of the rationale for this method.
General principles are difficult to state; in practice, the particular cases become easily stated, while the general case becomes convoluted, a poor economy of logic.
Rationale of My Method
My method has as its principles:
Game world logic
Consistency
Concensus
Interpretation from the written text
Intepretation from game design
Universality, that is, intepretations that create a basis for other useful interpreations
The ability to blend the rules as written with on the fly rulings
Ease of use
Accessibility of rules through simple intuituion
Acceptance of ambiguity and "fuzzy logic"
A dialetic between general principles and desired outcomes; that is, the rules are subject to revision or reinterpretation when desired
A realization that the purpose of the rules is to move play forward, not to operate according to my personal whims or arbitrary logical machinery
Provisionality
Acceptance that the same word may be used with a different meaning in two places
Ideally: simplicity and elegance
