Great read. The Free Kriegspiel referee as system question is perfectly posed because different perspectives could argue that an expert IS a system vs. "not everyone is an expert, so not a system." But we'll let someone else argue that.
The Racing example was an attempt to avoid explosive wordcount involved in treating the subject generally. I believe the core of most games is highly abstract, often bordering on pure aesthetic. Racing is relatively explicit, by comparison. In that sense, the ontological structure indeed could often be surrounding the core rather than game elements immediately manifesting as explicit systems with explicit rules attached. There is a lot of designer freedom at this high level of consideration.
In a real TTRPG, "Racing" could not be the core of the game; there is no achievable hierarchy that could maintain diegesis with that. "Racing" could be an aesthetic focus surrounding some more high-minded pillar.
"Character includes timing ability, reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and hardiness/resisting death. Ship includes engine, thrusters, weapons, and hull/shields. Circumstance includes environment, navigation (which also is driven by ship computers), targeting (again, overlapping with ship computers), and sabotage."
Consider where the mechanic's goals and ability overlaps with the character's. Is the mechanic a "Ship" aspect or a "Character" aspect? In reality, he will be deeply rooted in both. In this way, all of these objects will become interlinked in a rich (diegetic) web that becomes difficult to explicitly map out. That was a point that you picked up on which I did not address strongly.
Great read. The Free Kriegspiel referee as system question is perfectly posed because different perspectives could argue that an expert IS a system vs. "not everyone is an expert, so not a system." But we'll let someone else argue that.
The Racing example was an attempt to avoid explosive wordcount involved in treating the subject generally. I believe the core of most games is highly abstract, often bordering on pure aesthetic. Racing is relatively explicit, by comparison. In that sense, the ontological structure indeed could often be surrounding the core rather than game elements immediately manifesting as explicit systems with explicit rules attached. There is a lot of designer freedom at this high level of consideration.
In a real TTRPG, "Racing" could not be the core of the game; there is no achievable hierarchy that could maintain diegesis with that. "Racing" could be an aesthetic focus surrounding some more high-minded pillar.
"Character includes timing ability, reflexes, hand-eye coordination, and hardiness/resisting death. Ship includes engine, thrusters, weapons, and hull/shields. Circumstance includes environment, navigation (which also is driven by ship computers), targeting (again, overlapping with ship computers), and sabotage."
Consider where the mechanic's goals and ability overlaps with the character's. Is the mechanic a "Ship" aspect or a "Character" aspect? In reality, he will be deeply rooted in both. In this way, all of these objects will become interlinked in a rich (diegetic) web that becomes difficult to explicitly map out. That was a point that you picked up on which I did not address strongly.