Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8499874" data-attributes="member: 71699">What I am referring to is the valency between symbol and object (for the given interpreter) that unites them so that the symbol has its meaning, and we can go beyond what is known by manipulating the symbols.I am not aiming to get into linguistics or language, but rather drawing attention to our learning about and imagining Frodo passing through Moria given just the symbols on the page. A disconnect between symbol and fiction defies experience.And this is closer to what I am interested in: the role of game as tool in producing a novel narrative. I say, simply, that the narrative produced using game-artifact is not identical to that which would be produced otherwise. Some of the features of the dissimilarity might be plausibly characterised as systematic and progressive.We must expect that, given the role of game as game in producing the narrative.That's a great observation. On the one hand, rules evolved. Discoveries were made and effective methods found. On the other hand, designers got better at focusing the rules on things that matter, and avoiding a simulationist trap (trying to detail everything, and falling short, in SOD-breaking junctures.)</blockquote>