Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7843268" data-attributes="member: 71699">Indeed it might, at which point anything we want to say about what the model represents is down to our choice of fable.Seeing as the model does not accommodate such changes without on the fly extensions, again we come back to applying whatever fable we like. In 5th edition, and indeed via Disable Device in 3rd, Intelligence can be applied to opening a door. The ability to tailor the model on the fly drives us ever further into the realm of fabulism.Anything can work that a group finds plausible: that's the only requirement. The universe of the game has no ineluctable fabric: it only has such fabric - as much and as malleable - as the group have played out.Am I right in feeling that here you decide to agree with my point that so far as the model is concerned, the door is clearly defined? I think the line you are taking is that there is a transitory instance of the door/open-event and that so long as this transitory instance is connected to plausible fluff we are hunky-dory. Yet the model works the same way even if the transitory instance (if we decide that's how it operates) is connected to implausible fluff.Perhaps the most robust claim we could make is a normative one: normally, our fables share features... they might not - nothing forces them to - but they often do. What about when they don't? You and I might rail at the perversity of that group who allows a hard stare to merit an open check, but we can hardly stop them playing how they like, can we? The model lacks the detail necessary to prevent a hard stare from working: it relies on fabulous norms to keep everyone in line.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7843268, member: 71699"] Indeed it might, at which point anything we want to say about what the model represents is down to our choice of fable. Seeing as the model does not accommodate such changes without on the fly extensions, again we come back to applying whatever fable we like. In 5th edition, and indeed via Disable Device in 3rd, Intelligence can be applied to opening a door. The ability to tailor the model on the fly drives us ever further into the realm of fabulism. Anything can work that a group finds plausible: that's the only requirement. The universe of the game has no ineluctable fabric: it only has such fabric - as much and as malleable - as the group have played out. Am I right in feeling that here you decide to agree with my point that so far as the model is concerned, the door is clearly defined? I think the line you are taking is that there is a transitory instance of the door/open-event and that so long as this transitory instance is connected to plausible fluff we are hunky-dory. Yet the model works the same way even if the transitory instance (if we decide that's how it operates) is connected to [I]implausible[/I] fluff. Perhaps the most robust claim we could make is a normative one: normally, our fables share features... they might not - nothing forces them to - but they often do. What about when they don't? You and I might rail at the perversity of that group who allows a hard stare to merit an open check, but we can hardly stop them playing how they like, can we? The model lacks the detail necessary to prevent a hard stare from working: it relies on fabulous norms to keep everyone in line. [/QUOTE]

Verification