Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6881628" data-attributes="member: 42582">Just for your information - I was thinking that the ZoT narration in the Eloelle scenario is a corner case, because - as written - ZoT treats as equivalent (i) PC knowledge (as a matter of shared fiction) and (ii) knowledge to which the PC's player has access in playing the game (which is what you are calling mechanics, I think, and which I have talked about as &quot;access for gameplay purposes&quot;).But the Eloelle scenario drives a wedge between these, because in the fiction Eloelle has knowledge (the truth that she has worked out in virtue of her genius) but the player doesn't have gameplay access to that knowledge, and indeed it would be cheating for things to be otherwise (because the player has put a 5 in the INT box on Eloelle's character sheet).That is what leads me to describe ZoT, in the Eloelle scenario, as being a corner-case. (Remember, it was first raised in the thread in an attempt to show that the Eloelle scenario can't be maintained without breaking the rules. The reason it was chosen for this purpose is because it is a corner-case in the way I've described. But I agree with you that there is a feasible narration that doesn't break anything or require any cheating and allows the Eloelle narration to be maintained.)My response is a bit different from yours, but not wildly different.I think it's natural that readings of the text will diverge.I also think it's natural that for some people, they will think that there are good reasons that support their reading, and that others' readings are not as well supported.But I think it's an error to describe those with whose readings one disagrees as having added to or departed from the text, as if this is meant to convey anything more than the bare fact of disagreement.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6881628, member: 42582"] Just for your information - I was thinking that the ZoT narration in the Eloelle scenario is a corner case, because - as written - ZoT treats as equivalent (i) PC knowledge (as a matter of shared fiction) and (ii) knowledge to which the PC's player has access in playing the game (which is what you are calling [i]mechanics[/i], I think, and which I have talked about as "access for gameplay purposes"). But the Eloelle scenario drives a wedge between these, because in the fiction Eloelle has knowledge (the truth that she has worked out in virtue of her genius) but the player doesn't have gameplay access to that knowledge, and indeed it would be cheating for things to be otherwise (because the player has put a 5 in the INT box on Eloelle's character sheet). That is what leads me to describe ZoT, in the Eloelle scenario, as being a corner-case. (Remember, it was first raised in the thread in an attempt to show that the Eloelle scenario can't be maintained without breaking the rules. The reason it was chosen for this purpose is because it is a corner-case in the way I've described. But I agree with you that there is a feasible narration that doesn't break anything or require any cheating and allows the Eloelle narration to be maintained.) My response is a bit different from yours, but not wildly different. I think it's natural that readings of the text will diverge. I also think it's natural that for some people, they will think that there are good reasons that support their reading, and that others' readings are not as well supported. But I think it's an error to describe those with whose readings one disagrees as having [i]added to[/i] or [i]departed from[/i] the text, as if this is meant to convey anything more than the bare fact of disagreement. [/QUOTE]

Verification