thesis A) all the world's a nail.

thesis B) a light bulb creates an environment by its mere presence.

thesis C) if you build it, they will come.

(you should follow the links, they probably aren't what you think they are)

---

synthesis AB.1)
I think you can probably write your rules in such a way, with such a voice, that it guides play according to the voice. Some writers do this accidentally, probably. They are very excited about a concept -- say, swordfighting -- and they write their rules in a way that makes players excited about it too. Or, if you prefer, it attracts players who are also excited about swordfighting. One way or another, the rules get you to fight with swords more often than you might otherwise do. I have no doubt that many writers do this on purpose. I'm not sure how it's done. But I've seen it, and I'm sure you have too. So it's something you can probably get good at.

synthesis AB.2)
I think you can also probably write them in the opposite way. You could make your voice repulsive to the reader, you could make them want to defy you. You could impose your will so confidently that it reads as a dare. You could mischaracterize and parade around wrongful assumptions. You could insist on the utmost importance of certain aspects, with the actual intent of having players ignore those exact aspects because of it.

synthesis AC) You can write your rules as challenges for players to solve. If you build an engaging combat system, players will likely explore strategies, builds, or whatever else you give them. If, instead, you write an interesting system for, say, baking, then they're more likely to bake, or at least to try to solve the baking puzzle from afar, by just observing it. Conversely, if you want your players to bake, you probably ought to make some interesting baking material, yes? I mean, you could trust them to bring in their own, but look, they can still bring their own interesting baking ideas in and add them to yours. I think that's kind of how baking works, actually.

synthesis AB.2C?)
It's possible, though probably quite challenging, to write a rules text whose rules act as a challenge to the players to step outside the rules. Rules that function so poorly that players are guided -- not instructed, not even invited, but nevertheless guided -- to fix them, to throw them out, or to transform the mode of enjoyment from genuine to ironic.

Furthermore, this fixing, this trashing, this ironic appreciation, they can all be fun.