Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8651334" data-attributes="member: 71699">I very much agree with you on that. We can have doubts as to any participant's good faith and competence, but that is not the sort of play we aim to opt-into. Assessments may be tacitly prefaced with - "In the case of faithful players and trustworthy GM, conspiring competently within their constraints and principles." We can avoid assuming an adversarial attitude - players aren't reaching for +3 defenders in safes, GM isn't fabricating gotchas.I agree with you here, too. We might as well be speaking about robust play, because once we're envisioning spoilsports it's hard to put a boundary on the fall out. We'd have to preface with - "In the case of unfaithful players and untrustworthy GM, conflicting incompetently without constraints or principles." That doesn't seem worth talking about.So locking would not be compatible with HCS, in the case that GM reserves all right to what's true about the world at large from moment to moment; the latter being what is generally expected in HCS. You imply not guaranteed to be the case, or at least judgement suspended as to whether it is always the case. Is that all right?Players and GM working together. The continuous sequence of saying what follows (what follows situation, description, system), with deltas from imagination and system.What I mean by deltas is, Sam says something that absolutely everyone agrees follows, but if Jo had been the speaker just then, Jo might have said something different. Sam and Jo's imaginative resources are not identical. Sam rolls a die, getting 6, propelling things one way. In a parallel world, Sam rolled a 10, propelling things a different way.I described it as iterative because it's often like Harper's left-hand diagram (mutatis mutandis). Where the outputs of a (potentially vaguely) defined scene are effectively inputs to the next one. It can be viewed as applying our rules repeatedly to our game-state (fiction and system) so that it is continuously modified.It's not exactly like this, but in a sense we possess a resource of implicit and explicit rules that may be clearly bounded in some respects, and vaguely in others, and we apply those rules repeatedly to a game-state (fiction and system) so that each next state is dissimilar from the previous, but can be seen in the previous in light of the rules. Here thinking of written system rules, tacit or spoken social rules, and rules of language and cognition.</blockquote>

Verification