Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9623616" data-attributes="member: 6790260">So...I want to understand something here.Is solving a mystery something that is done by agreement between the detectives involved? Or is it something where a person correctly identifies the facts involved in a situation that they were unable to directly observe, but where the correct facts are of intense interest?Because I would consider it a gross breach of justice if solving a criminal case occurred because the detectives agreed that a particular result should be true. Instead, I should hope a team of detectives solving a criminal case did so by acquiring evidence over which they have no control, and which they heed regardless of whether that evidence suits their interests or preferences."Vigorous creative agreement" strikes me as being incapable of producing that latter effect. By definition, it only produces things that people vigorously agree with. In other words, things are established by consent; the only results that can occur are results that each participant approves of occurring, and nothing can occur that does not get that consent.The size of the first prime number larger than that integer you mentioned earlier (the exact value doesn't really matter) has nothing to do with vigorous creative agreement from anyone. It has absolutely nothing to do with consent. Whatever that prime is, it simply is; whether I have vigorous creative agreement with that result is irrelevant to whether it is the result or not.This is not true of a roleplayed mystery under "vigorous creative agreement", as far as I can tell from reading the reference you linked. Under such a context, there can never be situations (for the players, rather than their characters) such as:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">What I thought was true turned out to not be true because the evidence disproved it</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A piece of evidence I thought was irrelevant turned out to be extremely important</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I was misled by someone's deception, but discovered that deception and overcame it</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Most importantly: I came to the wrong conclusion, and got an innocent person convicted</li> </ul>The characters can always be put into such a situation, but, by definition, players under "vigorous creative agreement" cannot ever have those things happen. Things only occur by consent, so they must consent to X being true...which means they already think it is true, they aren't persuaded against it by evidence, but rather by pure other-person-arguing. A piece of evidence cannot simply be extremely important (or entirely irrelevant or anything else), it is so because we have consented to making it so. A player cannot ever actually be deceived; a character can be deceived, but the player must consent to the world being other than what they had conceived, and thus, in the moment of consent, they believe what it really is, completely skipping over any period of deception. A player can consent to having their character's detective-work be shown false, and thus the character's efforts got an innocent (of this crime) person convicted, but the player cannot consent to their own thoughts being incorrect, as in the very act of consent, the correct thoughts are necessarily replacing the incorrect ones.And I take more or less the same stance as the poster Chris in that discussion: other than the unwanted or the unwelcome, there is the unexpected (which Chris calls the "unthought"), and I find Vincent Baker's claim that unthought always and inherently means unwelcome (which then manifests as the unwanted when it occurs) to be extremely weak. "Unwanted" might be fitting in the sense that "wanting" requires intention and if we're specifically talking about things unthought then they can't be "wanted"; but the way Mr. Baker is using the term absolutely goes WAY farther than that, into "I specifically DO NOT want this", making it a lot harder to accept anything like this. Then the alleged claim that everything unwanted guaranteed is unwelcome when it actually manifests? Yeah, I don't buy that at all. I want some unexpected things to happen. Not absolutely all unexpected things, but some; they are not only welcome, they are highly desirable. How can I want the unwanted? How can I welcome the unwelcome?But, that aside: I don't believe something can be "a mystery" (in the sense that a "whodunnit" is a mystery, or "an unsolved criminal case" is a mystery) if it isn't possible for the people attempting to solve it to get it wrong without their consent. I do not see how it is possible for vigorous creative agreement to produce a situation where the players are wrong without their consent.</blockquote>

Verification