Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9033305" data-attributes="member: 71699">I own it and have read it. I agree that Baker writes clearly. I meant my comment very narrowly in respect of just what was quoted and summarised in the OP.I'm interested it for a few reasons. One is to have an explanation that includes FKR and one-player RPG. Another is because the rules/norms dichotomy is itself extremely interesting to me. The point of suggesting a definition is really to give a foundation to work from. To which end folk might say - oh yes - rules really are para-norms, sounds good, what's next?Yes, I have also read all of the articles in his blog where he discusses the Onion Structure. They're great.I appreciate that you're endeavouring here to offer helpful advice. I find the point interesting and consequential. That you don't is of course absolutely okay.It's a crucial consideration and one that I'm coming to understand a reasonable amount of theory has already been developed on. How do we know which rule to apply in cases where a description does not exactly match any text in the rule itself? Baker has employed a number of strategies to deal with that, in their way formalisations of strategies often already employed by groups. For example, AW take backs. Would you say it was unknown in your groups for folk to see that they had divergent understandings of a situation or what was intended, and be allowed to revise their descriptions? Predating AW, I mean.Good advice, honestly. For my definition, I copied it out of this thread and put it into a document, allowed time for reflection, and then slightly revised it. To me, it contains some conccrete ideas that I believe have useful consequences. That's all I need, I suppose. I feel like we should encourage one another's investigations into TTRPG, and I appreciate what you have written as good advice.</blockquote>

Verification