Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9259190" data-attributes="member: 71699">I took your responses to indicate that you'd seen my meaning, but on reflection - maybe not? What I am thinking about is the force with which a principle or rule has consequences on play. Designers employ a variety of strategies to achieve that, for example in AW Baker takes particular care to exemplify his meaning and emphasise how and that he wants a rule to be followed. In the past I've referred to that as strong or high deontic effect - the imposition of a strong obligation or sense of duty - a high likelihood the rule will predict the behaviour.The significance of the mechanics is that they oblige and constrain what can be said. I don't see what the argument is with that. Picture a mechanic that did not oblige and constrain: it would surely not matter what it said. It's relevant to consider the force with which different forms of rule have consequences for play, especially for freeform which depends upon subtle largely unwritten rules. (So here I reject any notion that freeform is rule-less even if the rules are unwritten, for reasons that should be obvious based on what I've previously said about rules in this and other threads.)EDIT Normative-force is probably a better term. It matters to freeform because various norms are in force in play, and what is written or agreed (procedures, principles) emphasises or modifies those. I am questioning not solely whether we could construct the appropriate principles, but even supposing we did, whether their normative-force is sufficient/insufficient to compel players to say the unwelcome?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9259190, member: 71699"] I took your responses to indicate that you'd seen my meaning, but on reflection - maybe not? What I am thinking about is the force with which a principle or rule has consequences on play. Designers employ a variety of strategies to achieve that, for example in AW Baker takes particular care to exemplify his meaning and emphasise how and that he wants a rule to be followed. In the past I've referred to that as strong or high deontic effect - the imposition of a strong obligation or sense of duty - a high likelihood the rule will predict the behaviour. The significance of the mechanics is that they oblige and constrain what can be said. I don't see what the argument is with that. Picture a mechanic that did not oblige and constrain: it would surely not matter what it said. It's relevant to consider the force with which different forms of rule have consequences for play, [I]especially[/I] for freeform which depends upon subtle largely unwritten rules. (So here I reject any notion that freeform is rule-less [I]even if[/I] the rules are unwritten, for reasons that should be obvious based on what I've previously said about rules in this and other threads.) EDIT [I]Normative-force[/I] is probably a better term. It matters to freeform because various norms are in force in play, and what is written or agreed (procedures, principles) emphasises or modifies those. I am questioning not solely whether we could construct the appropriate principles, but even supposing we did, whether their normative-force is sufficient/insufficient to compel players to say the unwelcome? [/QUOTE]

Verification