Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9217078" data-attributes="member: 71699">I didn't picture the GM in the assumed mode of play (trad, neo-trad or OSR) as having any opinion on the character being at the top of the wall. They're not proposing an alternative version of the fiction, they're telling it like it is. Perhaps that helps tease out something beyond semantics: the idea that &quot;competing concepts of the fiction need to be resolved&quot;. The concepts are not put in competion. In my example, GM does not negotiate on what player says their character says and does, and player does not negotiate on what GM describes, such as a sheer wall.Possibly it is the assumption that there could be a negotiation - i.e. competing conceptions of the fiction that need to be resolved and integrated somehow - that drives resistance to the word? That in some modes of play, it is not supposed that drafts of the fiction compete, while in other modes of play it is supposed that they do. One way that can work is where authorities are strongly demarcated up-front. A good example being that Jo-player's drafts never compete with Addy-player on the subject of what Addy-character says or does, because Addy has ordinarily unchallengeable authority over their character.Possibly, see above. The idea of proposing various conceptions of the fiction that have to be reconciled seems related to fundamental assumptions that are prevalent in some modes of play and less so or absent in others.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9217078, member: 71699"] I didn't picture the GM in the assumed mode of play (trad, neo-trad or OSR) as having any opinion on the character being at the top of the wall. They're not proposing an alternative version of the fiction, they're telling it like it is. Perhaps that helps tease out something beyond semantics: the idea that "competing concepts of the fiction need to be resolved". The concepts are not put in competion. In my example, GM does not negotiate on what player says their character says and does, and player does not negotiate on what GM describes, such as a sheer wall. Possibly it is the assumption that there could be a negotiation - i.e. competing conceptions of the fiction that need to be resolved and integrated somehow - that drives resistance to the word? That in some modes of play, it is not supposed that drafts of the fiction compete, while in other modes of play it is supposed that they do. One way that can work is where authorities are strongly demarcated up-front. A good example being that Jo-player's drafts never compete with Addy-player on the subject of what Addy-character says or does, because Addy has ordinarily unchallengeable authority over their character. Possibly, see above. The idea of proposing various conceptions of the fiction that have to be reconciled seems related to fundamental assumptions that are prevalent in some modes of play and less so or absent in others. [/QUOTE]

Verification