Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9249538" data-attributes="member: 71699">I believe this is covered by considering the intended chain of justification. It's supposed to beFiction justifies action justifies rule invocation justifies further fictionPresupposing the rule comes into play when it hasn't been justified by the fiction leads to thisFiction justifies action <s>justifies</s> rule invocation <s>justifies</s> further fictionWhy did we invoke the rule, when that wasn't justified by our fiction? The answer connects with my observation that there are in practice three specificities of resolutionIt exactly fits a rule It fits within the scope of a rule It doesn't fit a rule Our games have means for handling each specificity. If it fits the rule, do what the rule says. If it fits within the scope of a rule, do something like what that rule says. If it doesn't fit a rule, turn to your means of judging. AW refined this toIt fits a narrow rule (playbooks, typically) It fits within the scope of a broader rule (basic moves) It fits neither of the above, so invokes a super-rule (MC-moves) There's some sophisticated design going on, that works the border between rules and principles. (Hence Harper's observation cited by [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER].) Anyway, so long as the chain of justification is sustained, the conversation can't breach observed norms ("common sense".)[USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] observes thatTo my reading, GM's job lies more in how justified fiction twists and turns, rather than the immaculate conception of new fiction. [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER]'s example speaks to that - it implies we already knew the bastard was tied up, so it's justified to say he sneakily got out of his ropes. I don't take [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] to be inviting breaches of the chain of justification. The differences in approach are subtle. I've edited this post to reflect that I'm still thinking them through.Postscript: You can sustain the chain of justification in "GM-curated" games like Pathfinder. If a rule doesn't fit, don't invoke that rule. Is it right to say you observe that sometimes a rule gets invoked, and then you notice that it doesn't fit your fiction? It seems the question falls on - why was it invoked, if it didn't fit? That sounds like a break in the chain of justification.</blockquote>

Verification