not unidling

glossary is appendix, not core

Ah, thanks, fixed

I’m not sure about “reasonably inferred from context” - what kind of situation is that meant to cover?

Does it mean that if we have standalone rules of “a Gambler may gain an apple” and “a Gambler with three fruit wins” (with no further definition of what fruit is), we’re allowed to “reasonably infer” that fruit can refer to apples?

I tried to make it so that it covers our usual way of writing rules and we dont have to change anything.

And, hrmmm. About the last part, my intent is that it only refers to the names (labels) and not further categorizations like that, but if it’s not clear, then I should change the wording a bit (not sure yet how, though)

What does “reasonably inferred from context” give us that (something like) “referred to by a rule” doesn’t?

Being referred to by a rule would nearly everything keywords and it sort of defeats needing to have the concept of a “keyword” at all. It’s a more formal solution to what I have so far, though

If the definition doesn’t require rules to refer to them, that sounds like it allows informal game talk to define keywords: in a dynasty with apples and oranges, “fruit” becomes a keyword as soon as we start using it in conversation. And a rule of “gain 3 fruit to win” would be enforceable if enacted (where we’d normally frown at it for being insufficiently precise).

Being able to define undefined terms like this feels a bit risky, if what would normally be seen as a stub mechanic is jolted into life by what can be “reasonably inferred from context”.

I don’t like having a keyword named “keyword”.