Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9033464" data-attributes="member: 42582">Sure. I'm familiar with the concept of an atom (cf molecule), or of an atomic sentence in philosophy of language. But (i) notoriously it turns out that atoms have sub-atomic constituents, and (ii) in philosophical treatments of language and logic the notion of atomic sentence is reasonably tightly defined (eg it contains no truth-conditional operators, and no generalisations), and that definition is defended by reference to broader considerations (eg an argument is given that atomic sentences, so conceived, represent the simplest possible categories of states of affairs).Just deploying the phrase "atomic sentence" doesn't, on its own, establish any truths about the nature of rules, or how rules are useful in RPGing. Do we learn more about RPGing by focusing on the rule for what happens if a die is cocked after rolling, or by focusing on the rule that sets out what and how to vary a tally by reference to that roll? And if we focus on the latter rule, do we learn more or less about RPGing by analysing our statement of it into (eg) the rules of arithmetic? No answers to these questions are provided by introducing the notion of "atomic rule", nor by asserting without more that (say) an AW move is capable of analysis into multiple rules.Again, how much does this matter to the analysis of RPGing? For instance, one might say that it is constitutive of D&D (a "sacred cow") that combat is resolved via the "roll to hit, roll to damage" procedure. Except that originally, D&D also permits use of the Chainmail procedure. Moldvay Basic permits variable weapon damage but doesn't mandate it (so presumably the rule as to which die to roll for damage is not constitutive) but AD&D doesn't - but do we learn anything important by asserting that a table which uses all d8s for damage is no longer playing AD&D?Is AW constituted by the conversation, and everything else is regulatory but not constitutive? Does it matter to the analysis of RPGing?Although it is important if our goal is to understand how a very popular class of RPGs work - namely, they specify procedures by reference to mechanics without qualification but then state, as a general rule, that the GM may suspend the mechanics at will (D&D-ish RPGs are rather prone to this). Contrast (say) AW or BW, which have (in their different ways) more nuanced statements about when mechanics are invoked, and are thereby able to rely consistently on the use of mechanics to introduce the unwelcome and unwanted. This is a fundamental contrast between two approaches to RPG play and RPG design.Well, likewise!But the points I've made in my recent posts, including this one, are made deliberately. The introduction of undefined technical phrases, abstract schemas, unstructured formalism etc does not introduce rigour into explanation simply in virtue of form.</blockquote>

Verification