Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9015417" data-attributes="member: 82106">Interesting... I didn't really parse 'complete rules' and 'complete system' in a conscious way. I guess you could. So maybe this is a useful kind of distinction to make, I'm not sure... Like, the difference between some hypothetical infinite but judgment free game (lets call it 'infinite chess' as I can't come up with a real-world example, played on a lambda-x-lambda sized board, lol) and Dungeon World is that: L-Chess is complete as a system, it has definite game states that are unambiguous and thus the rules require no judgment whatsoever to apply, a simple computer algorithm can check the legality of any possible move. Dungeon World is then clearly different, as the state-change algorithm requires us to use some kind of non-formalized criteria to distinguish states, although the process for handling state transitions is still completely specified. Both have complete rules, but L-Chess is 'system complete' in that the boundaries of the game, the distinction of game states, etc. forms a well-defined class called an 'L-Chess game'. DW would then be complete in its rules, but not necessarily complete in terms of it being possible to finitely describe its state unambiguously. It might not even be possible to define the participants unequivocally. Is an adventure designer a participant? Is the boyfriend who's watching and commenting, but not playing a PC, one? So, I'm not sure the 'system vs rules' terminology is the best, and we're starting to get into some pretty hair-splitting distinctions between RPGs here, but there would seem to be SOME consensus that there are at least hypothetically these distinctions (though the fact that I had to resort to a non-representable game 'L-Chess' disturbs me as a mathematical realist...).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9015417, member: 82106"] Interesting... I didn't really parse 'complete rules' and 'complete system' in a conscious way. I guess you could. So maybe this is a useful kind of distinction to make, I'm not sure... Like, the difference between some hypothetical infinite but judgment free game (lets call it 'infinite chess' as I can't come up with a real-world example, played on a lambda-x-lambda sized board, lol) and Dungeon World is that: L-Chess is complete as a system, it has definite game states that are unambiguous and thus the rules require no judgment whatsoever to apply, a simple computer algorithm can check the legality of any possible move. Dungeon World is then clearly different, as the state-change algorithm requires us to use some kind of non-formalized criteria to distinguish states, although the process for handling state transitions is still completely specified. Both have complete rules, but L-Chess is 'system complete' in that the boundaries of the game, the distinction of game states, etc. forms a well-defined class called an 'L-Chess game'. DW would then be complete in its rules, but not necessarily complete in terms of it being possible to finitely describe its state unambiguously. It might not even be possible to define the participants unequivocally. Is an adventure designer a participant? Is the boyfriend who's watching and commenting, but not playing a PC, one? So, I'm not sure the 'system vs rules' terminology is the best, and we're starting to get into some pretty hair-splitting distinctions between RPGs here, but there would seem to be SOME consensus that there are at least hypothetically these distinctions (though the fact that I had to resort to a non-representable game 'L-Chess' disturbs me as a mathematical realist...). [/QUOTE]

Verification