On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 6:08 PM Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> An action that is regulated by a requirement-creating entity CAN
> only be performed as described by the entity, and only using the
> methods explicitly specified in the entity for performing the given
> action. The entity SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe
> actions that are not regulated by it.
Combined with "Contracts CAN regulate actions that are defined in
other requirement-creating entities.", doesn't this allow contracts to
decide whether rules-defined actions succeed or not?
> Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a requirement-creating entity
> CANNOT add or remove ways of performing actions that it does not
> define, but it CAN forbid or require the performance of such actions.
If we're going to be all explicit about what it means to define
something, I feel like that should include gamestate in addition to
actions.
On the other hand, before I saw this thread, I was planning to propose
simply repealing Rule 2125. The only part of it that seems necessary
or useful to me is the "methods explicitly specified in the Rules"
clause, and that could be handled a different way – say, in "Mother,
May I?":
5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.
For game-defined actions, the meaning of an "attempt" depends
on the mechanism the rules define for performing the action.
If no mechanism is defined, it is not possible to attempt to
perform the action.
