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: 8637083" data-attributes="member: 71699">Huizinga's view was that cheating shattered the circle of play. However, one can easily construct counter-cases, such as cheating that goes unnoticed, or is only noticed later, or when the accusation is later found to be erroneous, and so on. A related behaviour is griefing. The griefer does not accept that the rules necessarily apply to them, or they seek to employ the rules for purposes they are not intended for.A normal view is that a cheater accepts the goal of the game (steps into the magic circle, grasps the challenges etc) but they do not accept that they must follow all of the rules. A cheater generally hopes to do well, so they are a sincere participant in a play but not a sincere participant in the normative expectation that they will follow the rules. They're able to pick and choose among the rules - following those that suit their goals, disapplying others.The questions are of what counts as a genuine instance of rule following? That they can be asked at all tells us that it is not as simple as - all rules are binding. The binding force of rules is never located in the rule. Again considerRule 1. Agree with [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER]!Rule 2. Agree to rule 1.Are those rules? How can they be rules if you do not accept them as binding on you? If you do accept them as binding on you, where is the agreement with me that they ought to secure? I willingly accept both of them, and count them binding on me.One way this is done through what I call prospective play. It is a skill that game designers exercise regularly: i.e. the ability to picture what play might arise from some rule(s) without having to sit down and play the game.It is also done through descriptions and testimonials. Sometimes that amounts to - "Try this, it's fun". If I trust the speaker, I might accept that putting the given rules in force for myself will lead to fun (or whatever other experience we share an interest in.)Yes, we willingly put the rules in force for ourselves. Consider the case of getting a rule wrong, say when learning a game for the first time? My group got the TB2 trait rule slightly wrong when we used it, not realising some uses gave two checks instead of one. Thus we did not bind ourselves to the intended rule. We also ignored some of the rules governing using Nature in our first couple of sessions. It was up to us which rules we chose to put in force for ourselves.Notice the urge to put in some kind of brake here: those are the tacit or exogenous rules (aka ethos or principles) that have sufficient deontic force to bridle. Coupled with the interest in all concerned - including DM - to have the experience that enforcing the rules constitutes. When you talk about normative expectations, being normative, they apply to DM as much as others.</blockquote>

Verification