One thing I really enjoy about the article you linked is how it parses two different possible 'activities' participants can engage in when a question comes up-- uncovering information versus creating information and how the player can desire a specific one and be disappointed when they got the other.
There is also a third one;
recapitulating/vetting information (as in canonical information)
.
Its absolutely imperative that players understand the best practices/
meta of the game they're playing and exactly what their role (the player meta) is in that process.
If you're participating in a game of Agon which features Greek Classics/Mythology, none of the players (including Strife; GM) should be occupying a cognitive space where they believe that content which is introduced into play should be properly vetted according to the canonical elements of those classic stories and myth. This is the tables'
own mythology to carve out during play. It merely draws upon the source material in broad strokes and in the few ways the rules make explicit. So a player who deviates from that, who positions themselves to think in terms of vetting the canonical fidelity of this particular Agon Island we're playing right now is in the wrong headspace. We're
creating information. We're not
recapitulating/vetting information.
There are games out there that are about recapitulating/vetting information. I've called them Setting Tourism in the past. A game where the participants are attempting to recapitulate a setting (like canonical Forgotten Realms or something) does that to (a) passively explore, peruse, chew, experience their beloved canon and often (b) use their canon-expertise as a primary input for orientation to content, to draw inferences, and to act upon those inferences. So you have a relationship here of both
recapitulating/vetting information and then using that model to
uncover information and then act upon it.
Players playing Agon in that headspace would be undermining the player's meta which is about
creating via making big, bold moves that are within the broad genre but not constrained by granular canon.
Something else I've been thinking on recently is related to Euro's statements and your quote above about
uncovering vs
creating. Its about
bread crumbs and who has the bag?
When a GM frames a scene in a Story Now game and asks "what do you do" or "what do you think" or any kind of question, they're
handing you the bag of bread crumbs. If you don't realize that
you've been handed the bag of bread crumbs and now its your job to leave a bold, vibrant trail for others (especially the GM) to follow,
that is a problem. If the GM's scene includes 2-4 elements and your thinking is preocuppied by "what are they trying to tell me...what can I uncover and then infer to make the 'correct' move and solve the puzzle (?)"...
that is a problem. If your response to those same 2-4 elements is "those breadcrumbs are missing canonical ingredients/texture...I'm going to use my canonical expertise to ensure that we properly hew to the source material"...
that is a problem.
And, of course, the inverse is also true. If the game is a Trad/Sim/Immersionist game about canonical fidelity and recapitulating already told story elements and hewing to source material, then
players shouldn't be situated mentally in a place of creation. Or if the nexus of gameplay features challenge-based priorities that are meant to leverage source material expertise to uncover & infer, then players
shouldn't be situated mentally in a place of creation. Because either of those would be a
player meta : game mismatch that is a problem.
So this is why I'm always harping on demystification of the priorities of play, of the process of play, of what participants should be thinking about and doing at all times. One participant orienting themselves to conveyed information, to their role, to a rule or rules, to "what is the point of all of this" in the wrong way can partially or entirely eff up a game. And that often leads to a bad time that didn't need to be a bad time.