Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8298060" data-attributes="member: 71699">Ah, well. I focused on system as the concrete game - the artifact. It is true that there is the matter of what players bring to it: how they grasp, enact and uphold the rules. It's also reasonable to include them in system, although perforce then each game session - each game-as-artifact + unique-cohort-of-players is then a different system. You can see that by reflecting on the divisions on these boards as to how to grasp, enact and uphold various rules.So then as you say principles and technique are relevant. I'm not unmindful of that, I deliberately left it out because it introduces a lot of complexity and I did not know how complete a description of system you wanted. Whether we just wanted to consider what the game affords, or what games+players result in. I refer you to Espen Aarseth and his suggestion that games might be understood as mechanisms (thus appealing to philosophy on mechanisms). I see games more as tools. It is on the tool that I was focusing.But yes, let's also think about principles and techniques as I would agree with your sense that they are relevant to our discussion. Foremost, I think you can agree that players come into the game from outside it, right? The principles and techniques you speak of can come in a few forms. First of all there are what have been called elsewhere exogenous rules - or house rules. Also house techniques. These come in with players from their own external context which may bear any number of influences. Then there are those informing the design and articulated as guides - not usually rules - by the game designers. Players of course must grasp, enact and uphold those and do so in different ways.You can I hope see how that connects with my attempt at disambiguating the label "skilled play" from skilled play (no quotes). I hope to get to your problem to over-inclusiveness after this.</blockquote>

Verification