Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8649805" data-attributes="member: 71699">I feel folk pretty comprehensively mistake what I'm saying. I appreciate what Baker is saying. What I'm attempting to get at is something like this - () is magic circle of play. [] is game text. G is game system. P is principles. I is correlation of resolution with player intention.([GPI])([G]PI)Harper's right-hand diagram is adduced toward a conclusion about the second arrangement; i.e. that resolution is correlated with player intention only if the game text includes system and principles. You used the word "concrete" and that seems okay to me. We can easily agree that the first arrangement more reliably ensures correlation with player intent than the second. We might also agree that the first arrangement does not absolutely ensure correlation with player intent, for example, it could be played ineptly.That's one axis. Now consider - W is imagined world. D is dice roll. = means to index. R is results. T is tensions (with a ring of intentions). C is consequences.D = R|TD/W = R|CAnyone writing a description of resolution for the second arrangement is guaranteed to suggest possible empty safes. When that is the game system, there isn't any faithful description of resolution that avoids suggesting them. Suggesting them, however, does not commit to them. Let's label my arrangements top to bottom C, U, S, O, and suppose they are axes so we have quadrants CS, CO, US, UO.I can then make claims like<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">CS ensures strong I</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">CO may ensure strong I, depending on what the text says</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">US ensures strong I</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">UO may ensure strong I, depending on what P is</li> </ul>Harper's left-hand diagram is solid. Harper's right-hand diagram solidly describes one way CO and UO can go. What way they go is settled only in the actual text, or the actual principles. Harper's right-hand diagram is a conclusion about a single - often seen  - settlement (i.e. that of "traditional" play); what's invisible are all the other diagrams describing the other settlements.For avoidance of doubt then, I am not saying that Harper's diagrams are incorrect. I am saying that supposing all RPG is captured by just two diagrams is incorrect. As [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] often says - I don't see how this can be controversial.</blockquote>

Verification