On Fri, Jun 21, 2019 at 9:26 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > This leaves it undefined what a game-defined action is. In particular, > the new version of the rules leaves it unclear whether it's possible to > attempt to do something that's not defined by the rules but which would > change the gamestate. There should likely at least be a reference to > recordkeepor information.
For the record, my intent is: If that something is a preexisting action that the Rules say has the *result* of changing the gamestate, like sending an email (in some circumstances), then the circumstances under which it can be attempted or performed are not within the Rules' scope to define. If that something literally *consists of* changing the gamestate, like "making omd a player", then... well, I guess I *want* that to count as a game-defined action, since I definitely want the "meaning of attempt" clause to apply to it. But on reflection, there's a fair argument that it does not.
