Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6354933" data-attributes="member: 42582">Only for a particular, somewhat idiosyncratic notion of "internal causality", which probably already includes the notion of "mechanics correlating with in-game causal processes".In your post above, you noted that the gameworld is not less believable because the NPCs charge the fighter. In other words, using CaGI it doesn't undermine the consistency of internal causality - there is nothing that we knew about the gameworld that makes it causally improbable, or impossible, that the NPCs would charge the fighter.To conclude that CaGI it violates internal causality, you need to add some additional interpretive idea, such as that a decision by the player counts as a decision by the character. But that is just a particular application of the general correlation thesis. Of course if you affirm it the more general thesis will follow; but that tautology doesn't show that correlation is the only way to maintain internal causality.The other way you do it is, as you identified in relation to CaGI, to make sure that no action declarations generate outcomes that causally contradict the already-established state of the fiction. Because, in RPGing, so little of the fiction is ever actually specified in detail at one time, it turns out that this task (of avoiding causal contradictions) isn't that hard.</blockquote>