Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8267122" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I don't think there is any real disagreement between us. I'm not real worried about metaphysical debates about what the word 'exists' means, or what exactly we are saying exists, etc. There is certainly an agreed shared view of the fiction that the game's participants are working with. SOMETHING there is real, or else real has no meaning at all. 'Ontological Inertia' is good. For specific situations 'fictional position' also works. And in terms of things like strategy, there is still the necessity that the fiction be 'cognizable' as well. That is if it is utter nonsense and nobody can draw ANY conclusions from anything, then you have nothing but mechanics applied according to some rules, but really no fiction related to it. Some games, like Toon, can get close to that, but there's always SOME sort of 'genre logic' or something at least. I think that things like 'CaW' can be seen as particular styles of applying a process to the fiction, in that case 'thinking about strategy'.</blockquote>