Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8588155" data-attributes="member: 71699">Do you feel a GM is permitted in TB2 to rule that an instance of using a trait against oneself isn't legitimate? Or to put it another way, on what grounds was your use of the trait against yourself legitimate?Perhaps your case could be put S &gt; D &gt; S where the first S is your appreciation of the mechanics, the D is some form of Describe to Live giving the GM enough detail to drive resolution, and the final S is the change in the system (−1D, gain a check.) I think though that somewhere in there is intended to be legitimating fiction. You put it that the legitimating fiction comes where I put D. The text admonishes against &quot;reaching&quot; so it seems to me that prior fiction must also matter. Your desire to avail of the mechanic provokes a speech act that must not jar with prior fiction (ideally follows naturally from it).I'm not trying to assert as certainly right or rebut an analysis: I intend and hope my comments are understood as investigatory. How might this be true, could we look at it this way, etc. Note though - as an aside - that I do share intuitions with the poster who askedBaker in the end resisted that suggestion and chose to keep effectiveness separated from positioning. In this I depart from his construction. A version that doesn't include effectiveness can't be predictive. What I believe goes on is that folk apply it with tacit intentionality.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8588155, member: 71699"] Do you feel a GM is permitted in TB2 to rule that an instance of using a trait against oneself isn't legitimate? Or to put it another way, on what grounds was your use of the trait against yourself legitimate? Perhaps your case could be put S > D > S where the first S is your appreciation of the mechanics, the D is some form of Describe to Live giving the GM enough detail to drive resolution, and the final S is the change in the system (−1D, gain a check.) I think though that somewhere in there is intended to be legitimating fiction. You put it that the legitimating fiction comes where I put D. The text admonishes against "reaching" so it seems to me that prior fiction must also matter. Your desire to avail of the mechanic provokes a speech act that must not jar with prior fiction (ideally follows naturally from it). I'm not trying to assert as certainly right or rebut an analysis: I intend and hope my comments are understood as investigatory. How might this be true, could we look at it this way, etc. Note though - as an aside - that I do share intuitions with the poster who asked Baker in the end resisted that suggestion and chose to keep effectiveness separated from positioning. In this I depart from his construction. A version that doesn't include effectiveness can't be predictive. What I believe goes on is that folk apply it with tacit intentionality. [/QUOTE]

Verification