Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9676959" data-attributes="member: 71699">It sounds like you agree with me that they may be likened inasmuch as they are applications of discretion by specific participants.EDIT I perhaps noticed something interesting here. Why would I count extrapolating as an application of discretion rather than choice? One has to remember that the application is to the question of whether to call for a roll. What is wanted at that point is a reasonable belief that meaningful consequences will be entrained. That chimes with how folk very often play procedures that require discerning-consequences: they call for a roll on the basis of a belief its consequences will be interesting without having chosen what those consequences are going to be. Two notions suggested in the BW Codex for how that can work are 1) GM sees that the consequences are implicit in the test, and 2) GM maintains the appropriate attitude (one liable to devise appropriate consequences.)I agree with you that said applications of discretion are then markedly differentiable. One involves comparing what has been said with a description that is part of rules. While the other involves extrapolating or inferring from what has been said along lines suggested by such descriptions.That job of comparing seems as you say incommensurate with a job of extrapolating. Perhaps too, many participants can more reliably perform the former than the latter, notwithstanding the necessity of the latter in fabricating our shared ongoing narratives.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9676959, member: 71699"] It sounds like you agree with me that they may be likened inasmuch as they are applications of discretion by specific participants. EDIT I perhaps noticed something interesting here. Why would I count extrapolating as an application of discretion rather than choice? One has to remember that the application is to the question of whether to call for a roll. What is wanted at that point is a reasonable belief that meaningful consequences will be entrained. That chimes with how folk very often play procedures that require discerning-consequences: they call for a roll on the basis of a belief its consequences will be interesting [I]without [/I]having chosen what those consequences are going to be. Two notions suggested in the BW Codex for how that can work are 1) GM sees that the consequences are implicit in the test, and 2) GM maintains the appropriate attitude (one liable to devise appropriate consequences.) I agree with you that said applications of discretion are then markedly differentiable. One involves [B]comparing [/B]what has been said with a description that is part of rules. While the other involves [B]extrapolating [/B]or inferring from what has been said along lines suggested by such descriptions. That job of comparing seems as you say incommensurate with a job of extrapolating. Perhaps too, many participants can more reliably perform the former than the latter, notwithstanding the necessity of the latter in fabricating our shared ongoing narratives. [/QUOTE]

Verification