Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9151221" data-attributes="member: 42582">I didn't bounce of it, I guess because I didn't find it meaning-free.I took the first to be an idiomatic rendering of In order to do it [ie roll the dice for a move as per the rules], a player must do it [ie declare an action for their character which is listed as the move in question, such as (eg) seizing something by force].I took the second to mean If you do it [ie declare an action for your character which is listed as a move, such as (eg) seizing something by force], then you do it [ie roll the dice for the appropriate move].An alternative, which would exploit the player-PC identification inherent in typical RPGing, would involve a more co-referential second person:In order to do it [ie roll the dice for a move as per the rules], one's PC must do it [ie in the fiction, one's PC must undertake an action which is listed as the move in question, such as (eg) seizing something by force].If you [that is, the PC in the fiction] do it [ie declare an action for your character which is listed as a move, such as (eg) seizing something by force], then you [the player] do it [ie roll the dice for the appropriate move].The alternative rendering is analogous to how the D&amp;D rulebooks use the second person to refer simultaneously, or sometimes ambiguously, to the player and their PC.Anyway, the key thing to reading the phrases is to recognise that the pronoun &quot;it&quot; shifts in meaning, across its two occurences, between the rules for the move and the fiction for the move, as is brought out in the subsequent words &quot;When a player says that her character does something listed as a move, that’s when she rolls, and that’s the only time she does&quot;.To me, it seems pretty clear.EDIT: In post 258 upthread, [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] pre-empted my second alternative (with the second person shifting reference along with the &quot;it&quot;).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9151221, member: 42582"] I didn't bounce of it, I guess because I didn't find it meaning-free. I took the first to be an idiomatic rendering of [I]In order to do it [ie roll the dice for a move as per the rules], a player must do it [ie declare an action for their character which is listed as the move in question, such as (eg) seizing something by force][/I]. I took the second to mean [I]If you do it [ie declare an action for your character which is listed as a move, such as (eg) seizing something by force], then you do it [ie roll the dice for the appropriate move][/I]. An alternative, which would exploit the player-PC identification inherent in typical RPGing, would involve a more co-referential second person: [I]In order to do it [ie roll the dice for a move as per the rules], one's PC must do it [ie in the fiction, one's PC must undertake an action which is listed as the move in question, such as (eg) seizing something by force][/I]. [I]If you [that is, the PC in the fiction] do it [ie declare an action for your character which is listed as a move, such as (eg) seizing something by force], then you [the player] do it [ie roll the dice for the appropriate move][/I]. The alternative rendering is analogous to how the D&D rulebooks use the second person to refer simultaneously, or sometimes ambiguously, to the player and their PC. Anyway, the key thing to reading the phrases is to recognise that the pronoun "it" shifts in meaning, across its two occurences, between [I]the rules for the move[/I] and [I]the fiction for the move[/I], as is brought out in the subsequent words "When a player says that her character does something listed as a move, that’s when she rolls, and that’s the only time she does". To me, it seems pretty clear. EDIT: In post 258 upthread, [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] pre-empted my second alternative (with the second person shifting reference along with the "it"). [/QUOTE]

Verification