Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9230671" data-attributes="member: 71699">Yes, so you could put it in terms of - what am I allowed to intend? That fits some reframings describe upthread. Generally what I've called parsimonious, immediate, and cognisant of the information state.Picture that the inputs to resolution are split into performance + intent. Resolution outputs effect, that is change to game state.With conflict resolution effect must satisfy intent. The only permissible change to game state must relate to input intent. With task resolution effect must satisfy some other criterion. Such as, permissible changes to game state can't contradict prep, or must abide by internal laws of the game world, or whatever. There can be multiple criteria.It can't be about two sets of permitted action declarations, because you can feed identical action declarations into those two heuristics and get different outputs. With TR output effect might satisfy intent, but that's by the by... it's not necessarily considered. With CR output effect might satisfy the internal laws of game world, but again that's by the by.CR can finesse its legitimation glitches by applying fiction-first. TR can fix its misalignment with intent glitches by declaring effects up front.There's symmetry in the above: one crowns intent, the other context, and one finesses itself by locking down performance, the other effect.</blockquote>