Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 9363952" data-attributes="member: 19675">My first real inkling of this were the countless RAW vs RAI discussions, which echo lawyers debating over textual originalism vs legislative intent.The key difference is that, while both analyses start with plain-text readings, it’s generally a lot harder to discern what the actual rationale and intentions of a particular game rule as opposed to a lot of laws.  The legislators, committees and organizations responsible for drafting laws typically take copious notes on the whys and wherefores of a law’s drafting- sometimes the notes are much more voluminous than the final assembled codes.  Some areas of law even have books of “model codes” (with footnotes, citations, etc.) that might be adopted by legislative bodies in parts or in whole; as-is or with key modifications.  All very handy for fixing things if a law generates unintended consequences.  (Laws often generate unintended consequences.)You simply don’t get stuff like that released to the public on a regular basis.Or consider the nature of some of the jargon that has cropped up in game analysis vs legalese.  Both can be quite opaque, but law schools teach you the meaning, use and avoidance of the jargon as a formal, fundamental process.  I don’t know that anyone has set up similar schools on The Forge.  There’s a Black’s Law Dictionary.  Is there an analog for RPGs?</blockquote>