Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8941424" data-attributes="member: 71699">Non-formalists will argue that it is not so clear cut what should count as rules-following behaviour. Of course, it always seems clear cut within a normative context, and that is because of shared principles. You can perhaps see that judgements such as &quot;seriously&quot; and &quot;disciplined&quot; are normative, to the extent that they might dismiss intentional differences in behaviour as not-serious / not-disciplined. That said, as I've noted before I roughly follow Bernard Suits' in believing that following game rules is largely done for the sake of the play afforded (i.e. they are constitutive of that play.) The catch coming where purposes diverge, so that the play that is desired to be afforded diverges with the differences in rule-following.I think what you might be saying here is that it seems implausible to you that, say, play loops from one game couldn't be transposed into another. So that the particular play experience is in some sense locked to the particular game. Is that right?As I've noted a few times now, the bridge is the consequences-resolution found in the DMG. Consider for example the Thief move Tricks of the Trade in &quot;Dungeon World&quot;. That is an example of task resolution embedded within a PbtA framework. Twierdza Powszechna has more to say about this, drawing examples from FitD too.Ironically (considering my thoughts above) I believe it is in part because most D&amp;D groups do not take the words in the DMG on resolution seriously that it can seem like such a remote possibility that the game could ever play in such a paradigmatically different way. I see you posted Harper's two diagrams. I should add that I believe there is another more appealing graph that I think of as goal resolution, that to me makes better sense of task resolution. However, I also do not embrace a simple conflict-task binary: rather I think in terms of features of resolution methods that can be assembled in a great variety of different ways.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8941424, member: 71699"] Non-formalists will argue that it is not so clear cut what should count as rules-following behaviour. Of course, it always seems clear cut within a normative context, and that is because of shared principles. You can perhaps see that judgements such as "seriously" and "disciplined" are normative, to the extent that they might dismiss intentional differences in behaviour as not-serious / not-disciplined. That said, as I've noted before I roughly follow Bernard Suits' in believing that following game rules is largely done for the sake of the play afforded (i.e. they are constitutive of that play.) The catch coming where purposes diverge, so that the play that is desired to be afforded diverges [I]with [/I]the differences in rule-following. I think what you might be saying here is that it seems implausible to you that, say, play loops from one game couldn't be transposed into another. So that the particular play experience is in some sense [I]locked[/I] to the particular game. Is that right? As I've noted a few times now, the bridge is the consequences-resolution found in the DMG. Consider for example the Thief move Tricks of the Trade in "[I]Dungeon World[/I]". That is an example of task resolution embedded within a PbtA framework. Twierdza Powszechna has more to say about this, drawing examples from FitD too. Ironically (considering my thoughts above) I believe it is in part because most D&D groups do not take the words in the DMG on resolution seriously that it can seem like such a remote possibility that the game could ever play in such a paradigmatically different way. I see you posted Harper's two diagrams. I should add that I believe there is another more appealing graph that I think of as goal resolution, that to me makes better sense of task resolution. However, I also do not embrace a simple conflict-task binary: rather I think in terms of features of resolution methods that can be assembled in a great variety of different ways. [/QUOTE]

Verification