Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9221216" data-attributes="member: 42582">[USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]I am not using &quot;logical&quot; in the sense of sensible or rational or predictable if you know someone's inclinations.I am using it in the sense in which chess and backgammon can be characterised as unfolding in a logical or (if one prefers) mathematical space (which the board helps represent, much as a diagram can help represent a geometrical state of affairs); whereas (say) basketball unfolds in a physical space; and a RPG unfolds in an imaginary space.Your second paragraph is already positing that the RPG in question has a certain sort of rule triggered by a certain sort of action declaration.Whether this is true depends on the game and the table's conventions (as per Baker's remarks about ownership8 and also *credibility).For instance, in the first ever Rolemaster session that I GMed, the PCs all found themselves on the docks of Greyhawk City at the same time, and an aggressive tout bundled them off to the same inn. As that was happening, one of the PCs introduced himself to the others, the player doing that in character. This changed the shared imaginary space, and as a result changed the fictional position of the PCs (eg the player's PC sheet had one name on it, but the player used another name to introduce himself - the first in a long line of disguises and pseudonyms used by this PC, who also frequently went about under Change Self-type spells). It did not go through the GM, and did not depend upon the GM &quot;consenting&quot; to it or &quot;approving&quot; it as a declared action. In the rules of RM, as operationalised at our table, a player has a very high degree of ownership over their own character, and very high credibility vis-a-vis what it is that their PC says.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9221216, member: 42582"] [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] I am not using "logical" in the sense of [I]sensible[/I] or [I]rational[/I] or [I]predictable if you know someone's inclinations[/I]. I am using it in the sense in which chess and backgammon can be characterised as unfolding in a [I]logical[/I] or (if one prefers) [I]mathematical[/I] space (which the board helps represent, much as a diagram can help represent a geometrical state of affairs); whereas (say) basketball unfolds in a [I]physical[/I] space; and a RPG unfolds in an [I]imaginary[/I] space. Your second paragraph is already positing that the RPG in question has a certain sort of rule triggered by a certain sort of action declaration. Whether this is true depends on the game and the table's conventions (as per Baker's remarks about [I]ownership8 and also *credibility[/I]). For instance, in the first ever Rolemaster session that I GMed, the PCs all found themselves on the docks of Greyhawk City at the same time, and an aggressive tout bundled them off to the same inn. As that was happening, one of the PCs introduced himself to the others, the player doing that in character. This changed the shared imaginary space, and as a result changed the fictional position of the PCs (eg the player's PC sheet had one name on it, but the player used another name to introduce himself - the first in a long line of disguises and pseudonyms used by this PC, who also frequently went about under Change Self-type spells). It did not go through the GM, and did not depend upon the GM "consenting" to it or "approving" it as a declared action. In the rules of RM, as operationalised at our table, a player has a very high degree of ownership over their own character, and very high credibility vis-a-vis what it is that their PC says. [/QUOTE]

Verification