Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8500423" data-attributes="member: 71699">The point of contention to which I refer is that I say that game as artifact (perhaps most easily understood as that which exists when game is not played) provides tools or a mechanism for systematically producing a progressive fiction, leveraging a form of analogical reasoning, while you and [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] contend that there is no such machinery in play.Is it correct to summarise that you understand the cues to serve as memory aids and a way to communicate fiction one player has in mind to another? I don't disagree with this point of view, so it is not in contention.Fundamental to our disagreement is that I say that facts about game as artifact in play are productive of facts in the fiction (and vice versa). While you deny the possibility of connection between the domains that this would require.* By valency I mean that there is a productive connection or correlation between facts in one domain and facts in the other.My notion of productivity is analogous to plausibility in analogical reasoning. Not all the items in the domains need to stand in correspondence. I won't expand on that here, but there are satisfactory answers in my view to all concerns raised about story, reference, and incompleteness. (Although it strikes me that it might be better to think in terms of inference than reference.)Your reading of the Brindlewood Bay critique seems respectably consistent with a thorough-going denial of game as mechanism as relates to story-focused RPG. When I enumerate story-focused RPGs, and given my position, I notice the many game elements retained, and are sympathetic with a view that for there to be any point having such elements they must do worthwhile work: meaning that they must have productive consequences for the fiction (and vice versa.)[NOTE For now I am keeping rules together with "cues" although I'm aware you might not do so. We might need to tease that out at some point.][*On rereading your post I noticed hedging (bolded) that may put our views closer together. I'm not arguing for direct or complete representation. I am arguing for a meaningful and productive correlation.]</blockquote>

Verification