Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9044958" data-attributes="member: 71699">I share that intuition, but can think of a couple of catches<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Maybe there really are possibilities that can't be expressed in rules. I don't think so, but E contains all possibilities, not just those I can think of.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Suppose there is a natural possibility N. By natural I mean it's something we're naturally capable of doing in RPG with no system rule needed. In some game there is a rule for N, but in other games N is still possible even though there is no rule for it. How should N be counted in E? Should there be ruled versions of N as well as natural-N?</li> </ul>I suspect that reflection on the second point would lead to seeing that natural-N does not have a singular identity, but rather a myriad of identities based on norms. Seeing as for each such norm there could be a rule, it seems that the set of ruled-Ns can have the same contents as the set of natural-Ns. That would then suggest that rules and norms are similar if not the same. Which is a point I and others made up thread.It would then be moot to distinguish between natural-Ns and ruled-Ns, as E would have the same contents either way. That provides a basis for some claims that rules aren't needed. On surface, they're not needed whenever we have access to the right sort of natural-Ns.My approach is to say that 1) at a given time we may not yet have access to the right sort of natural-Ns, so rules can be drafted to constitute those, and 2) that we sometimes want a specific version of N to prevail over all others. (I literally said this, over a thousand posts ago, in my #709.)Yes. So, additionally, sometimes possibilites are emergent when a specific collection of other possibilites is in place, and not others. In these collective situations, rules are needed more than ever to make sure that the specific versions of N are available and prevail. But this is secured by 2) so nothing further was needed.</blockquote>

Verification