Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9033246" data-attributes="member: 71699">Yes. Other ways I have seen it put is as propositions and factual predicates. I was thinking of language such as "player describes what their character does." I'm not wedded to the particular word.So by your lights, there can be a procedure containing just one rule. Why call that a procedure exactly? Isn't rule clearer?I'm cautious of mapping computer game design philosophies onto TTRPGs. However, TTRPG mechanics are normally easily deconstructed into multiple rules. Can you say what problem you see with understanding a mechanic as a compound rule? Or supposing we take mechanic and rule to be synonyms, what do you propose for compound rules that collectively fabricate methods?Well, as I have repeatedly said that I don't think we should say mechanics when we mean rules, this would be a problem for those saying mechanics <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> Which is to say, in defining mechanics as compound rules, I am reserving for myself the resources needed to cover all those other things.It's kind of an open question whether there can be any sort of general game studies or whether classes of games such as TTRPGs can really only be studied as separate domains. But anyway, almost all of the literature identifies rules as basic to games, so I feel on safe ground to want to examine them in detail.I'm not really that hung up on terms, and it might even be too reductionist to go to atomic rules (assuming too, that it's even possible.) I've made the possible (but I think pretty much unavoidable) mistake of embedding my definition of what a rule is into what looks like a procedure for using the rule. Making quite reasonable the sort of resistance you raise.Strictly, an RPG rule as I define it is a supersession or extension of a norm, that is a rule fills in for a norm wherever one would serve. A para-norm, if you will.* One can agree or disagree with that (I see plenty of issues myself) but all this other criticism feels to me a bit off-track. I'm most interested in the question of whether that definition of a rule does enough work? And on the work such a definition seems to presuppose norms are doing for TTRPG. Perhaps what a norm does is something quite functional... as I think I've implied.[*Rules are paranormal. You read it here first!]</blockquote>

Verification