Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9033193" data-attributes="member: 71699">Okay, I definitely do not mean to embrace any great flattening. However, I also want to look closely at the details. Would you agree that there is a necessary matching to be done? Someone has to say that this description matches to this rule. SFAIK that's not possible to automate in TTRPG except in artificially narrow cases (e.g. the only permitted descriptions are those exactly matching a rule), but as I called attention to it can itself can be governed by rules (and thence the great unflattening!)I feel like your concerns are really as to the latter, not the former, right? I ought to acknowledge the unflattening done by those rules that govern the matching of description to rule; and I do! That's distinct from giving up the by my lights proper observation that the description must be matched to a rule (and that ultimately someone decides that.)Well, that seems to restate my concern, because I'm aiming to look at what rules do, not what procedures do. A procedure or play loop will typically involve multiple rules, right? It could be that it's wrong to try to look at what individual rules do, but that would be quite a different criticism. It would be to say that we should only look at procedures, rather than that rules are procedures.Maybe I am influenced by software terms. When I say procedural, I don't mean a single rule: I mean a series of rules. Perhaps in a different domain the meaning of procedure really is the same as rule.From wider reading of game studies I would say that mechanics are usually taken to be actions players can take to change the game state. That's similar to your definition, but not identical. As an example, Miguel Sicart defines game mechanics as "methods invoked by agents for interacting with the game world." In esports commentary, if a player has "good mechanics", it means they grasp exactly how those methods work and are adept at employing them. The first line of your definition in isolation is close to how I am thinking of rules.If I understand what you are saying here correctly, it gets at some of what I had in mind. Investing play with purposes can have the consequences you call attention to. That's one reason why I prefer "immersionism" over "simulationism". Immersionism is about purposes. Simulation is a means toward the purpose. (I suppose some could have the simulating itself as their purpose... I'm not sure about that.)I think I would not be saying that all cars are identical just because I want to take a close look at how spark plugs work even if all cars have spark plugs. However, if all cars have spark plugs, it seems to me a good idea to get clear on how they work. Just to squash my own analogy, I think rules are more fundamental to games than spark plugs are to cars.</blockquote>

Verification