Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7334146" data-attributes="member: 16814">Firstly, thanks for engaging the concepts I tried to explain.  That's very welcome.Okay, I see that I went a bit to general and maybe skipped a few steps, because you're talking a bit past the point I was making and why [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument fails.  Let me expand a bit using what you referenced, as boardgames are a fantastic metaphor to explain the thinking.Firstly, the claim was that fiction doesn't exist -- it's not a real thing, it's imaginary, and, as such, it's really only the act of authoring that fiction that's a real thing.  This is important because [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s argument revolves around authoring.  To relate this to boardgames, it would be like saying that the rules of a boardgame don't exist, the are not real things.  The only thing that is real is making moves in the game, because you don't rule, you make moves.   [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] goes on to use the framework above -- that authoring fiction is the only real thing, to say that therefore authoring one fiction is equivalent to authoring different fiction -- they're the same act, and, and here's where he skips a number of steps, therefore changing the fictional orc to dead is the same as saying there's a map in the study.  However, the steps he skips are the rules applied to how it's okay to author fiction.  For [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s examples, those rules are that the authoring adheres to the established fiction, that it adheres to the pre-defined genre logic, and that it adheres to the concepts that it should always revolve what certain authors want over other authors (this last being player action declarations vs DM fiat).  To relate back to boardgames, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] wants to say that both moving your pawn one space forward is just as legal as moving your knight in an 2x1 L.  What he skips is that this is true in the game of chess, but not in the game of checkers -- that you can play different games with different rules and that those rules are subjective and not objective things -- they are imaginary restraints on allowable moves, just as the conventions of an RPG are imaginary restraints on how authoring occurs.For some reason [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] misses this crucial point to his own argument -- that it's the subjective restrictions on what's allowable that determine the usefulness and legality of moves.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] so loves a certain set of games that he applies the rules of those games to other games and becomes confused when confronted with games that use different rules.  In a way, it's like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] really loves his chess, and when confronted with the move of jumping in checkers, which has the same board, the same number of pieces, the same general concept as chess, stops and asks, "What's jumping for?"  When explained, he says, "but that's doesn't make any sense, why should I have to wait until the opponent moves into a space where I can take his piece, and why does that mean I have to move past him.  What should be happening is that I can move my pieces according to their unique abilities and take whatever piece I want, so long as it's withing my abilities, by moving into their space?"  He's applying a different game's rules.When this is pointed out, he then retreats to the argument that the rules are fictional constructs and don't really exist, it's the moves that matter and that moving your pawn forward 1 is just as legal as moving your knight in an L.  He, again, applies the rules of the game he prefers when he presents this argument, which defeats his argument because it hinges on his preferred rules and doesn't allow for other rules to be equally valid.As far as agency, yes, your example is largely devoid of agency. The decision to regarding the door being only to open it or not, and the results being being told what's behind the door or doing nothing is an example of very low agency.  I think, for this reason, it's a bad example, as what's happening is that people are bringing in larger assumption sets of their playspace and not understanding that that those assumptions aren't universal.  For example, in a style where there's a set dungeon, and set encounters, then opening that door is a part of a larger agency to engage that dungeon in the order you wish, and you might have many tools to bring to bear on your decision making on how to do that.  In that context, opening that door might be very fraught with agency due to things you've already found or that your very low on resources and opening a new door may bring salvation or ruin.  On the other hand, if the game you're playing is one that centers on things the players have indicated are of interest to them and on situations that engage those with stakes, then, sure, that door might just be set dressing and the players shoudn't even be faced with a choice to open it or not -- it's not the crux of the scene.  Or maybe it is, but because of things brought to the table.The point of that example is to show that opening a door as a move in a game is something that, absent any other rules or conceits, is hard to evaluate.  It's really the rules you bring to the situation, those completely fictional rules, that turn opening a door into something loaded with agency or trivial and banal.  If you only look at the door from one point of view, you'll only see the value of it from that point of view.  Someone else may have a completely different opinion of that door and the impact of opening it.</blockquote>

Verification