A somewhat tired and grumpy post, since I'm still slightly at a loss to understand why this issue raises its head so often. If anyone can explain to my where my brain is working wrong, or other people's are, I'm all ears.
The most common rules question I see, be it a TFL rules set, or otherwise.
The most common rules question I see, be it a TFL rules set, or otherwise.
The rules say things can do A if they have property B.
C does not have property B. Can it do A?I'm assuming that possibly the issue is that people don't read that 'if' as 'if and only if'?
I do understand this where I find it hard to see why people are reading additional meanings into rules and I get a bit annoyed with some of these posts.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if it is easier for those of us with a programming background to think in straight logic when reading rules.
Think you might have just hit on the answer, y'know.
DeleteNah... it's because you guys work for the WRG.. :o))
DeleteIt would be so much easier if some rule sets (not TFL) were written by programmers or the like - as many are not set out as simply at that!
ReplyDelete30 years ago rules sets, particularly American ones, seemed to be written by contract lawyers. I am not sure if that cultural difference still applies, but British rules, in my opinion, tend to be written in a more colloquial manner - are they more hard to follow by those without the gift of a programming brain (which I myself lack)? I would say, probably not. Maybe people are just getting stupider and have shorter attention spans.
ReplyDeleteWay back, when I did Philosophy at uni we had to use logic tables to analyse statements...might need to dig these out again for some wargames rules!
ReplyDeleteSome people read rules as permissions while others read them as restrictions. Perhaps like a make-your-own-adventure book the rules should be written in a way that directs each type of reader on the path of his or her prefered interpretation. A game within a game.
ReplyDelete