NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8601938" data-attributes="member: 71699">There is no conflict between intending, and finding out: RPGers find out what is within the scope of what they intended to find out. Anything else is meaningless. But more interestingly...There may be some unhelpful ideas about the timeline coming into play here. There is no fictional position that was. There is only our present belief about the fictional position, given what we know right now. It might be better to use the term "reflectively". You learn (through your own and others reflection upon it) what your fictional position is believed to be now.Additionally, we're close to saying that fictional position is the judgement of what is legitimate. So that it has no other form than the sense for legitimacy. Whereas almost all of our earlier discussion has given it (incompletely known) form, so that players might be expected to be capable of self-reporting much about what they believe the fictional position is.In any case, when I think of intention there are two ways that applies. The first is aboutness. In order to be capable of saying what follows (or does not follow, say in the case of reaching) we must know what the fiction is about. That's an important aspect of fictional positioning: a shared idea of what the fiction is about. In the case at hand, it's about (inter alia) being pursued by gnolls.Suppose contrary to that, it was not? That will commit us to accepting non-sequiteurs - absurdly disconnected sequences of actions - as always justified. That's not the sort of game that anyone plays. Given the vast number of possible declarations, taken sincerely it would rule out anyone saying anything that follows.The second way is the question of whether someone can hold a belief about the fictional position that includes an intention - such as I believe the parson intends to strike the child - and then make judgements of declarations in that light (retroactively, reflectively, whatever.) Such as counting justified a player's invoking their Good Parent trait (were there such a thing) to oppose the parson. I do not see how that can be ruled out and therefore one must accept at minimum that fictional positioning can include intentions.</blockquote>

Verification