Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4040608" data-attributes="member: 4937">JohnSnow: Ok, I see the problem.  You believe that the game world is more real than the game, and I deny that this is true.  Yes, as should be apparant from my discussion of authority, I agree with the general sentiment.  But all that means is that we need some really precise definition of what it means to 'cheat'.  The DM certainly can break the rules, and while he has the authority to do so its often a very bad idea.  Additionally, I think there is a pretty important difference between fudging results for some purpose (though on the whole my experience with this is bad and I don't recommend it), and outright doing things that are impossible.  For one thing, you can fudge results a little while maintaining a certain illusion, but you really can't break the rules in an obvious manner and do that.That's a very interesting question, especially in the way you put it.  Are the players really not playing at the time that the backstory is being related?  Does backstory exist in the game world until it enters that shared space between the players and the referee?  Before that, isn't it just a potential backstory which existing solely in the referees mind?  If the rules of game don't exist while the game isn't being played, surely the game world doesn't exist while the game isn't being played either?  Certainly the rules can exist in at least as tangible of a form as the game world when the game isn't actively being played.I'm not sure why you consider the distinction important.  The players "suspension of disbelief" doesn't just apply to thier ability to believe in the rules.  They must also be able to believe in the game world.  The rules really don't need to believed in except to the extent that they are percieved as a fair means of moderating conflict in the narrative.  What really has to be believed in is the game world.  And I think there is a good reason for that.  The game world is less real than the rules.No, he isn't either one.  An offstage NPC is a figment of someone's imagination.  The game world lives only because people have a shared experience of it created by the illusion that it is consistant and reasonable given its declared assumptions.  The game world isn't real. It's this statement that has been really confusing me in this discussion.  I finally realize what you mean by it.  I kept thinking that when you said an 'abstraction' that you were referring to an abstraction of something more real than the rules - like for example, reality.  But you are claiming that the rules are an abstraction of the game world.  For that to be true, the game world has to have a more concrete substance than the rules do.  I can't see how an imaginary world can be said to be more solid and tangible than the rules, especially since the rules are the primary means by which the imaginary world is made solid and tangible.  Rules you can read and touch.  The game world exists only to the extent that you can communicate to the players which is precisely why you need to practice consistancy.  One of the most common sources of table conflict is a failure to communicate the abstract game world to the player to the extent that the picture the player sees in his head is quite different than the one you see in your head.  We rely on rules to make the abstract world more tangible, so that actions have some sort of concrete consequence that everyone can relate to.  For the rules to be an abstraction of the game world, you and everyone else at the table would have to have absolute knowledge of the physics of an imaginary world and would have to have come to possess this knowledge through some other mechanism than the rules.  That's impossible.I refuse to admit the distinction exists because it requires me to believe that an imaginary world is real and has real tangible properties apart from those described in the game by even most broad definition of the rules.  That is to say that the game world has some quality that isn't described by the formal written rules (including descriptive text), house rules including informal ones that presently exist only in the referees head, precedents set within the game, or by a shared understanding of how things happen in the real world.  The faith you have in the reality of your artistic vision is charming, but I think in practice if you don't make your rules match your artistic vision you are asking for a world of hurt because that imaginary world you are thinking about isn't actually real, and certainly isn't actually real for anyone but you.</blockquote>

Verification