Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9020932" data-attributes="member: 42582">They are rules in the same way that football has rules about how goals are scored. In both cases, they are constitutive of the activity.It's not against the rules of football to not make an effort to score goals; but that doesn't change the fact that there are certain rules that determine what counts as winning.This gets into the question of what counts as identity of a game, which I personally think is not all that interesting.The point is that when, for instance, the commander has unilateral authority to allocate the task (ie settle the bids), they therefore have a unilateral power to establish the rules for victory in that hand. It is a type of rule-establishing power, and a non-trivial one (eg do we give the same person the job of winning no 9s and winning the 8, which means that one obvious way of winning an 8 becomes a loss condition when otherwise it wouldn't be?).My overall goal, with the analysis of the Crew and the comparison to rule zero, and likewise with the comparison to Prince Valiant &quot;storyteller certificates&quot;, is to try and reduce the &quot;mystery&quot; and - frankly - obfuscation that is often erected around it. Rule zero is reasonably straightforwardly analysed, in my view, as a power-conferring rule that takes as the subject matter of its operation (i) the fiction of the game and (ii) the default rules of the game. We can then ask about the conditions that govern it, and in turn then ask whether - in light of those conditions - it is a lusory means compatible with adopting a lusory attitude. We can also consider whether the role that exercises it is one that is expected to adopt the lusory attitude, or is an &quot;external&quot; role like that of a judge or referee (see eg the example I quoted from Gygax's DMG).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9020932, member: 42582"] They are rules in the same way that football has rules about how goals are scored. In both cases, they are constitutive of the activity. It's not against the rules of football to not make an effort to score goals; but that doesn't change the fact that there are certain rules that determine what counts as [I]winning[/I]. This gets into the question of what counts as identity of a game, which I personally think is not all that interesting. The point is that when, for instance, the commander has unilateral authority to allocate the task (ie settle the bids), they therefore have a unilateral power to establish the rules for victory in that hand. It is a type of rule-establishing power, and a non-trivial one (eg do we give the same person the job of winning no 9s and winning the 8, which means that one obvious way of winning an 8 becomes a loss condition when otherwise it wouldn't be?). My overall goal, with the analysis of the Crew and the comparison to rule zero, and likewise with the comparison to Prince Valiant "storyteller certificates", is to try and reduce the "mystery" and - frankly - obfuscation that is often erected around it. Rule zero is reasonably straightforwardly analysed, in my view, as a power-conferring rule that takes as the subject matter of its operation (i) the fiction of the game and (ii) the default rules of the game. We can then ask about the conditions that govern it, and in turn then ask whether - in light of those conditions - it is a lusory means compatible with adopting a lusory attitude. We can also consider whether the role that exercises it is one that is expected to adopt the lusory attitude, or is an "external" role like that of a judge or referee (see eg the example I quoted from Gygax's DMG). [/QUOTE]

Verification