Are the rules of a game a part of the game?

Question

Obviously thinking Wittgenstein...

Further, do the rules of the game and the playing of the game represent part of a greater whole?

(My suspicion is no - the rules are in the playing...)

Answer 1

Well, obviously the rules constitute the game. In the case of language, the rules are many and very flexible, but language can be understood as a game with a set of rules and instructions which make sense within a context. (more or less how Wittgenstein saw it).
Perhaps a simpler example would help. In the game of chess, the rules are the game. If you start changing rules, then you're not playing chess anymore; you're playing something else.
But (and I guess this is the crux of your question) is playing chess simply following the rules of chess, or is it something else? Calculations go on in the player's minds, they observe the board, they do a number of things which are impossible to observe and which are necessary to playing the game. But even these calculations have to take the rules into account. A master player plots a series of moves; he must remain aware of the rules at all times. When he finally plays, his move will fall within the rules.
The good player makes better moves than the bad player, but both play by the rules. Perhaps the better player has a better understanding of the rules? Because, and coming back to my original answer, I would say the rules constitute the game and playing within the rules is what we can observe.

Answer 2

It seems to me that the rules are the limitations imposed on a game. They "describe" the game through being "this" or "not this," in the sense of defining its parameters. In that the rules are specific to any given game, they are part of the game. The greater whole is implied when one plays any game utilizing its particular rules; these represent the microcosm of that greater whole, the macrocosm. If one chooses to drive a car (one game), then certain rules apply. Other choices, such as walking, running, bicycling, dirt biking, boating, parasailing, race car driving, skiing, or even staying home all contain rules specific to the activity. Yet the list of choices (games) represent the panopoly of aspects of the whole, each with its particular rules of engagement. There is an implied "stepping down" from the whole (the entire gamut of choices, or the panorama) to the specific (the game of choice itself, the selection) to the application (the playing out of the game, the details that define and differentiate the game from all others). From the bottom up, the playing of the game is determined by the rules, which are contained in the game, which is contained in the greater whole. From the top down, the greater whole contains a multitude of games, any one of which (or several of which, if played at once) is described by its differences from "all" the others in the whole through its specific rules and limitations, the "separating from the whole" factor at its lowest expression; the way in which playing is conducted is prescribed by those rules of limitation. The whole contains the game and the rules and the playing. The playing and the rules and the game each is derived from the whole. The playing of the game is at the bottom of the list; playing is merely the practical application (practice) of the rules of the game of the whole. I am Sirius

Answer 3

Rules of the game are the boundaries within which the game exists....... therefore the rules define the game rather than be any part of it.... they are integral to the game and yet are not merely a part thereof..... they are like the foundation of a building which holds the entire building and without which the building can not stand and yet, the foundation can not be said to be a part of the building because it does have an existence independent of the building built on it.

Answer 4

There is no game without rules to define the game, just like there are no "humans" if you don't define what a "human" is.

By playing a game you make a conscious choice to abide by the rules. Your logic is dependent upon what is allowed and what is not allowed by the game's rules. The rules of the game and the game-play itself are inseparable.

Let me ask you this - if someone said that in chess you could move your king like your queen if you wanted to, would that not change how the game is played? Would that not change your actions within the game? (I know it would affect my game play!)



Saul

Answer 5

I had a friend who needed replacement rules for a game Milton Bradley stopped making in the 80's. He called MB and they were able to send him some. You can get their phone number off of their website.

Answer 6

What are the rules of if they are not a part whatever it is you say they are of? "Rules of a game" refers to something OF IT. Something of a greater thing is said to be a part. Figure the rest out.

Answer 7

Of course rules are part of the game. There can be no game without them , there would just be chaos.Challenging the rules and seeing how far they can be pushed without actually breaking them is part of the fun too.

Answer 8

yes. Because they are part of the structure.
Some would say that games mirror life and its understanding.
You cannot erect a building without a set of principle/rules.
Once you have understood the rules, you understand the game

Answer 9

Rules provide some sort of external benchmark. Otherwise if internal, everyone would bend it. Now this depends on kids' boardgames, which you can't bend.. or is it life, which you sometimes bend without harm. It depends on the gravity of the situation too. You really can't bend rules if the situation calls for excellence, upright, morally steadfast standards.

Answer 10

I will say this if you do not follow the rules that are agreed upon in chess then you are not playing chess but some other albeit similar game.