Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9517470" data-attributes="member: 71699">A misunderstanding here is caused by misuse of the term &quot;non sequitur&quot;. It's stems from a disagreement on semantics... and as I'll try to explain, were that settled we could reach a better diagnosis.I'm agreeing that a wide range of additions to the fiction can be admissible as consequences: they are sequiturs... they fit Baker's rule. Genuine non sequiturs - those properly labelled by that term - jarringly fail to follow. The way I would use the term, no non sequiturs have thus far been illustrated. The chain of causality in your locusts example is fine: the locusts are reasoned from world premises, and the character is in their path because she lost her car.The rejection of proposed fiction you illustrated and associated with styles of play isn't to do with whether it is a sequitur: it's to do with whether it must be in sight before the roll. Under some styles of play proposals are rejected if they're not in sight before the roll: player hasn't been given the agency they expected over what they put stake.It's misdiagnosis to say that is about what follows. It's not, it's about what's fair.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9517470, member: 71699"] A misunderstanding here is caused by misuse of the term "non sequitur". It's stems from a disagreement on semantics... and as I'll try to explain, were that settled we could reach a better diagnosis. I'm agreeing that a wide range of additions to the fiction can be admissible as consequences: they are sequiturs... they fit Baker's rule. Genuine non sequiturs - those properly labelled by that term - jarringly fail to follow. The way I would use the term, no non sequiturs have thus far been illustrated. The chain of causality in your locusts example is fine: the locusts are reasoned from world premises, and the character is in their path [I]because [/I]she lost her car. The rejection of proposed fiction you illustrated and associated with styles of play isn't to do with whether it is a sequitur: it's to do with whether it must be in sight before the roll. Under some styles of play proposals are rejected if they're not in sight before the roll: player hasn't been given the agency they expected over what they put stake. It's misdiagnosis to say that is about what follows. It's not, it's about what's fair. [/QUOTE]

Verification