When you play any given boardgame, let’s say RISK, you are well aware that you are playing a game, a specific game even, called RISK in which you play land-grab. Also you might be aware that there are other games out there, which you are not playing, but might choose to do so in the future. Let’s say Monopoly, which is about landgrab. You do NOT think that people on the table next to you who are playing Monopoly are playing RISK wrongly.

Yet this is exactly what happens when culture A meets culture B. Culture A treats Culture B as the same game only played WRONG. (thus they must be cheating) . While they arent even trying to be the same game. They might be games alike, but surely each is a thing unto itself and deservers to be recognized as such?

Different cultures = Different games. Lots of games = Lots of Fun especially if you can pick what you want to play when you want to play!

Now, im into games and i realize that any set of rules (OR LACK THEREOF) has emergent properties that result in certain outcomes / mode of behviour and so on. When i choose to play games i think of what I want out of the game and choose my games accordingly.
If i want to have fun i play game A, if i want to have a deeply moving narrative experience i choose game B and so on. (this choice can be defined VERY specifically).

What this understanding brings me is

a) each differing ruleset has different emergent properties
b) rulesets can be modified to suit expectations/needs/want and so on
c) Rulesets cannot be objectively ranked in a hierarchy, for each differing ruleset has different emergent properties that might be desireable for different reasons. Rulesets are NOT universal
d) The rule that reads: “To ensure correct play of this gamel you must make sure everyone plays this game and not allow any other ruleset to be used” is HIGHLY poisonous. it is a game rule that diminishes all possible games to be played to ONE.

more thoughts later.

Those who don’t use forks we call “barbarians”; the forkless ones see us eating with our left hands and call US “barbarians”. And we both have it right; the idea of “barbarians” embodies the idea of people who don’t know the rules of play, and like children we must teach them how to conduct themselves, say hello, thank you (some languages have no words for “thank you” per se, so language enforces the rules of play too), please, knock before opening a door, call before coming over, etc.

I think anytime someone says, “Well, OBVIOUSLY, such and such…” I’ve probably just run into a rule of play, not a genuine personal thought of that person.

I think unstated and unexamined rules have the most power to create a culture of play; I don’t at all see them in a bad light. But you can’t change them (assuming they don’t work, or work poorly to create the kind of play you want) until you shine a light on them and examine them.