Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8610764" data-attributes="member: 71699">Given that belief we may find ourselves even more unlikely to find common ground.My view is that fictional position exists as a set of cognitive states of the participants, supplemented in the normal human way by symbolic ephemera. (A miniature on a grid can be such a symbol; they can be seen as reminders, but are also subject to manipulation. Jo pointing to their figure "I'm there, by the door, right?" is one example.)To put it another way, if fictional position exists elsewhere, then where?I did not say "one player", although I do say that each player must settle their judgement of fictional position in their present cognitive state, as influenced by the speech acts of others. You might view the fictional positioning as shared - which is useful for some purposes. I suggest accepting that there is no objective / independent version of the fictional position - nothing that can be crystallised and stand separate from player cognitive states, unchanged over time.Do we believe that fictional position can be queried so long as even a single member of the group remains? So that Jo could declare a use of trait against self and ask themself whether they felt they were on solid ground? From experience I would predict that over multiple such tests, Jo will attest to differences in the strengths of their conviction that they were not reaching. I believe that Jo can very well imagine a possible trait against self declaration and dismiss it - decide not to proceed with it - on the basis that it felt to Jo (alone) as reaching.Another possibility is to rule out fictional positioning in the case of solo play. Journaling RPGs might form a good set of counter-examples, unless those are ruled out of being RPGs? In any case, my view is that individuals remain capable of inventing and inventively querying a fiction (querying without being sure of the answer prior to making the query). Fictional position subsists on individual cognitive states.We agree I think that the position is never completely articulated, but each player will have a sense of fit that reaching may transgress, prompting a complaint. Cognitive states are so complex that it's impossible to draw a hard boundary around what will bear on a given determination. Based on work I've seen on games and brain imaging (fmri) the better assumption is that everything will. The whole brain isn't necessarily activating, but potentiation is an extremely subtle thing. Example, Jo is tilted by a low roll and responds more critically to Dro's declaration than she might have otherwise.I am disagreeing with any referencing back to a fictional position crystallised in time based on the temporal implications of "retroactive" . I agree that the position is never fully known, and we normally learn something about it each time we query it. That you can learn if your grasp of it is shared comes about because fictional position exists in present cognitive states.I agree as to crucial, but probably not sole. To me Baker explored, demonstrated, and took advantage of that crucial function.[Note edits as further thoughts struck me.]</blockquote>

Verification