Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9677112" data-attributes="member: 42582">There is no need to apologise!But what prompted my response to your earlier post was that you framed it as &quot;to me, a game that's all highlights makes no sense to me as a verisimilitudinous setting&quot;. That is, as a property of the fiction - ie the setting.Whereas in your post I just quoted, you frame it as being about your experience of the fiction - ie whether the way the fiction is presented elicits in you a certain sort of feeling/response.Perhaps you think the distinction I've just drawn is a very fine one, or quibbling too much over your choice of words. But to me the distinction I've drawn seems to be a recurring one in this thread - it also comes up when I (or another poster) say(s) that imaginary things can't have real causal impacts, and others respond that an actual person imagining something can have real causal impacts. Of course the latter is true, but the former denial is not talking about acts or experiences of imagining but rather the imaginary things themselves.And the reason I (and I think some other posters eg [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER]) have wanted to stress this difference, between the fiction and the way people experience or imagine the fiction, and how this makes them feel or act is because it is the latter which matters to how play - as a real event in the real world - occurs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9677112, member: 42582"] There is no need to apologise! But what prompted my response to your earlier post was that you framed it as "to me, a game that's all highlights makes no sense to me as a verisimilitudinous setting". That is, as a property of [I]the fiction[/I] - ie the setting. Whereas in your post I just quoted, you frame it as being about [I]your experience of the fiction[/I] - ie whether the way the fiction is presented elicits in you a certain sort of feeling/response. Perhaps you think the distinction I've just drawn is a very fine one, or quibbling too much over your choice of words. But to me the distinction I've drawn seems to be a recurring one in this thread - it also comes up when I (or another poster) say(s) that imaginary things can't have real causal impacts, and others respond that [I]an actual person imagining something[/I] can have real causal impacts. Of course the latter is true, but the former denial is not talking about [I]acts or experiences of imagining[/I] but rather [I]the imaginary things themselves[/I]. And the reason I (and I think some other posters eg [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER]) have wanted to stress this difference, between [I]the fiction[/I] and [I]the way people experience or imagine the fiction, and how this makes them feel or act[/I] is because it is the latter which matters to how play - as a real event in the real world - occurs. [/QUOTE]

Verification