Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9230910" data-attributes="member: 71699">Well, the game texts generally do have a codified structure, or you could put it - they say what amounts to playing in good faith!As a side note, absurd examples are only used to make the point clearly. Real cases usually lie on the boundary of what the group counts legitimate, which lies in different places for different groups. Again, game texts generally guide to the intended boundary.I would say that the issue cannot arise if people play in good faith. Where good faith play amounts to shared commitments on practices, principles and rules. It only arises if those commitments are rejected.Isn't this headed off by the GM just going ahead and saying what the mayor reveals? Given that's not at stake. What I'm getting at is your examples appear (to my reading) to aim to put that prepped myth at stake, but that requires discarding the foundational premise. Once I discard the foundational premise, I can no longer claim to be playing in good faith.It's not logically only It's OrI don't discount the possibility that some set of axioms could describe all this successfully, but the count of such axioms and the logical steps required would surely be vast.That's all true, and it often takes groups a few sessions to figure out where they want to draw their boundaries... and that's even with good cognizance of the game text.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9230910, member: 71699"] Well, the game texts generally do have a codified structure, or you could put it - they say what amounts to playing in good faith! As a side note, absurd examples are only used to make the point clearly. Real cases usually lie on the boundary of what the group counts legitimate, which lies in different places for different groups. Again, game texts generally guide to the intended boundary. I would say that the issue cannot arise if people play in good faith. Where good faith play amounts to shared commitments on practices, principles and rules. It only arises if those commitments are rejected. Isn't this headed off by the GM just going ahead and saying what the mayor reveals? Given that's not at stake. What I'm getting at is your examples appear (to my reading) to aim to put that prepped myth at stake, but that requires discarding the foundational premise. Once I discard the foundational premise, I can no longer claim to be playing in good faith. It's not logically only It's Or I don't discount the possibility that some set of axioms could describe all this successfully, but the count of such axioms and the logical steps required would surely be vast. That's all true, and it often takes groups a few sessions to figure out where they want to draw their boundaries... and that's even with good cognizance of the game text. [/QUOTE]

Verification