Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9230897" data-attributes="member: 71699">You've raised objections that I believe are interesting, to which the answer lies in the nature of play itself.Upthread you raised a concern with GM scaling down player declarations. Can player notwithstanding what GM says, insist upon their scaled up declaration? If not, then GM has said &quot;No&quot;. One may believe that norms in force at the table will lead players to give, in such confrontations, but it's still &quot;No - you can't declare what you wanted to declare&quot;... or it's &quot;Yes, let's proceed with your scaled-up declaration even though it would work better scaled down!&quot; A connected observation is that players as often say &quot;No&quot; to themselves.It's an obvious glitch in CR - commented on by multiple folk - that I could declare &quot;punch the Earth in half&quot; and if we aren't resolving my performance - how strong my punch is - then we could end up with a result that doesn't feel legitimate. I've already discussed some practices commonly used to fix that. And it is right to point out that these resolution methods do not exist in isolation: they're part of a web of practices that work together. One can to an extent analyse a single component of an Internal Combustion Engine, but one cannot complain too much of fault if the action of said component is regulated by another component leading to collective functionality.Which leads to the solution that I think you find unsatisfactory. The playful negotiation rarely if ever leads to &quot;I discover that X is Y&quot;. It's overwhelmingly more likely to land on &quot;What's the deal with X, is it Y?&quot; Logically, yes - you are right. There are all kinds of legitimation failures possible in CR. Your example of asserting a fact contrary to those already settled is just one of them. Picture &quot;I know we said the sky is blue, but I discover it is pink.&quot; Roll... is the sky still blue? &quot;I know we said Brother Jo is wearing a linen shirt and heavy oilcloth coat, but I discover he's standing at the pulpit stark naked.&quot; Roll... is Brother Jo naked?Play occurs because players adopt the appropriate lusory-attitudes for that play. The cases you are speaking of are far more extreme than you might be picturing. According to Huizinga, they are those of the &quot;spoilsport&quot;, who shatters the magic circle by abandoning the attitudes that sustain play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9230897, member: 71699"] You've raised objections that I believe are interesting, to which the answer lies in the nature of play itself. Upthread you raised a concern with GM scaling down player declarations. Can player notwithstanding what GM says, insist upon their scaled up declaration? If not, then GM has said "No". One may believe that norms in force at the table will lead players to give, in such confrontations, but it's still "No - you can't declare what you wanted to declare"... or it's "Yes, let's proceed with your scaled-up declaration even though it would work better scaled down!" A connected observation is that players as often say "No" to themselves. It's an obvious glitch in CR - commented on by multiple folk - that I could declare "punch the Earth in half" and if we aren't resolving my performance - how strong my punch is - then we could end up with a result that doesn't feel legitimate. I've already discussed some practices commonly used to fix that. And it is right to point out that these resolution methods do not exist in isolation: they're part of a web of practices that work together. One can to an extent analyse a single component of an Internal Combustion Engine, but one cannot complain too much of fault if the action of said component is regulated by another component leading to collective functionality. Which leads to the solution that I think you find unsatisfactory. The playful negotiation rarely if ever leads to "I discover that X is Y". It's overwhelmingly more likely to land on "What's the deal with X, is it Y?" Logically, yes - you are right. There are all kinds of legitimation failures possible in CR. Your example of asserting a fact contrary to those already settled is just one of them. Picture "I know we said the sky is blue, but I discover it is pink." Roll... is the sky still blue? "I know we said Brother Jo is wearing a linen shirt and heavy oilcloth coat, but I discover he's standing at the pulpit stark naked." Roll... is Brother Jo naked? Play occurs [I]because[/I] players adopt the appropriate lusory-attitudes for that play. The cases you are speaking of are far more extreme than you might be picturing. According to Huizinga, they are those of the "spoilsport", who shatters the magic circle by abandoning the attitudes that sustain play. [/QUOTE]

Verification