Aargh, I tried to stop myself posting this as it probably makes me sound a total pseud, but I couldn't resist and now have to face up to the possibility I am in fact a total pseud.
*Strokes non-existent beard and nods wisely* I am reminded of Wittgenstein's discussion of the impossibility of necessary and sufficient criteria for something to be an RPGs (okay, game) in his Philosophical Investigations:
Quote
"And one has to say this in many cases where the question arises “Is this an appropriate description or not?” The answer is: “Yes, it is appropriate, but only for this narrowly circumscribed region, not for the whole of what you were claiming to describe.” It is as if someone were to say: “A game consists in moving objects about on a surface according to certain rules . . .” — and we replied: You seem to be thinking of board games, but there are others. You can make your definition correct by expressly restricting it to those games.
"You may call it 'nonsense' if you like, but I've heard nonsense, compared with which that would be as sensible as a dictionary!"
