Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8227050" data-attributes="member: 42582">I wasn't thinking of degenerate cases. Chess played in bad faith can include accidentally-on-purpose tipping over the board if one is losing, but I don't think we need to factor that into any general discussion of how chess can be played.Illusionism is not in my view generally bad faith. The example the [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] gave - of allowing the check to climb the wall to be resolved although the GM knows it won't result in being hidden because there is another guard atop the wall - doesn't look like bad faith to me. It seems like completely standard D&amp;D-ish GMing.Upthread a poster - [USER=7017304]@jmartkdr2[/USER], I think - said that in the right mood s/he might allow the players to have their PCs find a secret passage that wasn't on his/her map. That sounds to me like a type of illusionism, but not remotely bad faith. When you refer to your notes being &quot;suggestions&quot; - so you might use them to settle the outcomes of declared actions, but might not - I also see the possibility of illusionism. But where is the bad faith?In these games with illusionistic features in action resolution, the player has the freedom to declare actions, and the GM resolves these applying the rules in good faith, which includes a permission on the part of the GM to adjudicate by reference to posited elements of the fiction which only s/he knows about and which, at the moment of resolution, s/he has unilateral control over.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8227050, member: 42582"] I wasn't thinking of degenerate cases. Chess played in bad faith can include accidentally-on-purpose tipping over the board if one is losing, but I don't think we need to factor that into any general discussion of how chess can be played. Illusionism is not in my view generally bad faith. The example the [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] gave - of allowing the check to climb the wall to be resolved although the GM knows it won't result in being hidden because there is another guard atop the wall - doesn't look like bad faith to me. It seems like completely standard D&D-ish GMing. Upthread a poster - [USER=7017304]@jmartkdr2[/USER], I think - said that in the right mood s/he might allow the players to have their PCs find a secret passage that wasn't on his/her map. That sounds to me like a type of illusionism, but not remotely bad faith. When you refer to your notes being "suggestions" - so you might use them to settle the outcomes of declared actions, but might not - I also see the possibility of illusionism. But where is the bad faith? In these games with illusionistic features in action resolution, the player has the freedom to declare actions, and the GM resolves these applying the rules in good faith, which includes a permission on the part of the GM to adjudicate by reference to posited elements of the fiction which [I]only s/he knows about [/I]and which, at the moment of resolution, [I]s/he has unilateral control over[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification