Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9015906" data-attributes="member: 71699">To be clearer, I haven't seen lusory commonly&nbsp; used except in connection with Suits' construction. I use it, because it puts something succinctly. It's not uncommon to see it cited in discourse on the sorts of issues at play in this thread. It's uncommon to see lusory used in any other context.This thread asks why roleplaying games have rules. To answer that can reasonably start with why games have rules. Suits points out that to play a game is to voluntarily accept unnecessary obstacles, so one general category of game rules are those constitutive of such obstacles. The why of a rule that constitues an unnecessary obstacle is to constitute that obstacle. And the why of the obstacle is found in view of lusory (playful) ends. The OP cited Baker giving a why of rules, i.e. to force upon players the unwanted. That immediately put me in mind of Suits. The unnecessary and unwanted becomes, paradoxically, the necessary and wanted. That paradox is dissolved by Suits' observation.Just as the OP rightly quotes something Baker put well, inviting and facilitating those interested to learn more, I quote something that has been influential in game studies because it is put well and those interested can readily find further discussion on it if they want to learn more.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9015906, member: 71699"] To be clearer, I haven't seen lusory commonly used [I]except in connection with Suits' construction[/I]. I use it, because it puts something succinctly. It's not uncommon to see it cited in discourse on the sorts of issues at play in this thread. It's uncommon to see lusory used in any other context. This thread asks why roleplaying games have rules. To answer that can reasonably start with why games have rules. Suits points out that to play a game is to voluntarily accept unnecessary obstacles, so one general category of game rules are those constitutive of such obstacles. The why of a rule that constitues an [I]unnecessary[/I] obstacle is to constitute that obstacle. And the why of the obstacle is found in view of lusory (playful) ends. The OP cited Baker giving a why of rules, i.e. to force upon players the unwanted. That immediately put me in mind of Suits. The unnecessary and unwanted becomes, paradoxically, the necessary and wanted. That paradox is dissolved by Suits' observation. Just as the OP rightly quotes something Baker put well, inviting and facilitating those interested to learn more, I quote something that has been influential in game studies because it is put well and those interested can readily find further discussion on it if they want to learn more. [/QUOTE]

Verification