Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8613582" data-attributes="member: 82106">Fictional position, that is to say THE FICTION ITSELF, obviously exists as cognitive states, as well as cues (IE some may be written down or whatever). Nobody is disputing that. What we are disputing is that you can somehow say WHAT THAT IS, without testing it. How do you know what each participant is thinking the state is if say we process a statement like "my character moves through the door"? Joe might have meant he just takes a step in, Charlie might interpret it to mean the character is moving steadily into the space beyond and is now substantially clear of the doorway. Betty might think it means he's moved in and taken up a position where her character can move through and resume some existing defined relative position in a predetermined marching order. Suddenly the GM reveals some threat, and we are about to find out which of these alternatives (or none of them) is going to actually prevail... How that happens can vary widely. In some games it could be the GM's prerogative to decide. It could be strictly the business of Joe, who declared the action of his character. Joe however, might decide he likes Betty's interpretation better, and adopts it as his own. Frank might invoke some sort of character ability and as part of determining the results of achieving his intent maybe HE defines where Joe's character actually is as a way of explaining the outcome. ONLY PLAY WILL TELL, though obviously in some cases it might be a fairly trivial amount of play.How is this different from what [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] is saying? Only play can or will determine what becomes canonical fiction, and that can only, definitionally by the laws of temporal mechanics, be something that occurred in the past. That is what is meant, only further play resolves it. Thus whatever we are thinking is the situation NOW is simply a hypothesis about the shared fiction, not established (again said establishment may be trivial, so the distinction is not always very important). In many game systems, like TB2, the importance of the distinction is pretty large, as only the use of specific mechanics and interaction with specific cues can resolve it.OK, I don't think anyone really disputes this possibility. I'd have to say though that there are ALWAYS at least 2 participants in TB2, the GM and a player.I think it is determined by querying those states, and using the process of play to resolve these hypotheses and prove them true or false. Again, some will be relatively uncontroversial. Everyone may clearly understand they are in a hallway, and that the walls cannot be passed through or over, but I would say this is so BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED ALREADY. Now, in solo play the mechanisms of such resolution may be substantively different from say TB2, where you have a GM. OK, but I think the player still constructs some idea (hypothesis) about what the fiction will be/is and then tests it somehow. If no such test exists, whatsoever, then I'm not sure where the GAME part of an RPG would reside...Again, I see what we hold presently in mind about what has not yet been resolved to be hypothesis. It will be valid to some varying degrees which we will only know when we try to find out by playing. Play to Find Out, what else can it mean?</blockquote>

Verification