Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9033367" data-attributes="member: 82106">Putting on my engineer hat for a moment, I am not blind to what [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] is saying in this sense. When we software guys implement something, we have certain tools at our disposal (I mean in a loose sense of &quot;techniques and such&quot; as well as things like text editors). It is common for these to be structured in a way that makes them instances or sub-types of more general things. So, when there is a statement like &quot;a procedure is a compound of rules&quot; I can think &quot;well, OK, a rule can be seen as an 'atom' of structure from a certain lens.&quot; Then I can consider that rules are of two classes constitutive and regulatory, and that a procedure is literally embodied in a game text as constitutive rules, probably more than one being required, or at least the procedure utilizing some sort of generalization, as in how &quot;The GM determines which move was invoked&quot; is both a rule and a procedure. I think 'mechanic' is also swept up here, and is maybe overused, like I agree that &quot;the GM determines which move was invoked&quot; is not a 'mechanic', as it doesn't involve cues and such, but its a fine point and probably not usually important.But obviously (in view of my other recent posts) I fundamentally agree with you on pretty much all points. I just see how gaps arise between different poster's views at times.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 9033367, member: 82106"] Putting on my engineer hat for a moment, I am not blind to what [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] is saying in this sense. When we software guys implement something, we have certain tools at our disposal (I mean in a loose sense of "techniques and such" as well as things like text editors). It is common for these to be structured in a way that makes them instances or sub-types of more general things. So, when there is a statement like "a procedure is a compound of rules" I can think "well, OK, a rule can be seen as an 'atom' of structure from a certain lens." Then I can consider that rules are of two classes constitutive and regulatory, and that a procedure is literally embodied in a game text as constitutive rules, probably more than one being required, or at least the procedure utilizing some sort of generalization, as in how "The GM determines which move was invoked" is both a rule and a procedure. I think 'mechanic' is also swept up here, and is maybe overused, like I agree that "the GM determines which move was invoked" is not a 'mechanic', as it doesn't involve cues and such, but its a fine point and probably not usually important. But obviously (in view of my other recent posts) I fundamentally agree with you on pretty much all points. I just see how gaps arise between different poster's views at times. [/QUOTE]

Verification