>In that case you forgot to define interact :-)
There is no reason to define other words, I meant that you shouldnt leave out a part of a definition just because to some people its obvious.
>>Rules dont need to be specified on the box or a manual or something to be rules.
>But the original statement wasn't that they should have rules but that they should state them. Some games do not state the rules.
Then that was misworded and should been, "Rules must be stated explicity or implicity if they can be enforced without the players actions".
>You need to be explicit about what kind of knowledge should be this common understanding knowledge. Otherwise you have merely, 'There must be some premises which are true in the game which the player knows are true in the game'.
I believe it was explicitly stated that it is the rules that must be stated. The above should clarify that rules dont have to be printed to be stated as implicitly stating them is ok.
>You could have as a requirement..
>A game is played by some players with the intent of entertaining themselves.
Except that the definition wasnt including the players perspective on this. The players perspective is not relevent in the definition of a game. The game developers are creating the game, so it is their intent on the use of the game that is important.
Players can create their own rules and their own games, bur then they become the designers/developers of the game.