Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7344993" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] - I don't think I agree that all "let's pretend" is lying. I'd rather call out lying as one particular case of pretence.When someone says "I'm Falstaff the Fighter" then either (i) that's false (because they're really Lanefan, or Gary Gyagx, or whomever) or else (ii) it's true (which doesn't seem right, because Falstaff doesn't exist, and so can't say anything about himself) or else (iii) something more complex is going on.In the context of RPGing, I think I go with (iii). I'll try and explain.A lie is straightforward assertion: so the (lying) assertion "I'm Falstaff the Fighter" is simply false, as per (i).But assertion involves an attitude of defence or commitment. When a RPGer says "I'm Falstaff the Fighter" s/he doesn't have that attitude - s/he's not signalling any intention to defend the claim. It's much closer to stipulation: "For present purposes (ie the playing of the game), I am Falstaff the Fighter."If the other players reject the stipulation, then there is no shared fiction (at least in respect of Falstaff) and so the game doesn't get off the ground.If the other players accept the stipulation, then other things become assertable within the scope of the stipulation - eg "Because you're Falstaff the Fighter, you're probably stronger than puny Nerd Nimblefingers." And I think any truth predication is also best understood as occurring within the scope of the stipulation - so if someone says "It's true that I'm Falstaff the Fighter" they are not literally asserting the truth of that claim. They're saying that the claim "It's true that I'm Falstaff the Fighter" is permissible within the scope of a stipulation that I am Falstaff the Fighter.(There are other reasons for pretending by stipulating besides entertainment - eg as I hinted at in a post upthread, this is how proof by reductio works.)In light of the preceding, I would say that where  [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s descriptions of play go wrong is that he says stuff in the scope of the stipulation, when his interlocutors (eg you, me) don't accept the stipulation. It's one thing to pretend to be Falstaff for the fun of RPGing - but why should I accept such a stipulation when I'm wanting to discuss techniques of RPGing? I don't want to learn what is assertable about RPGing within the scope of a stipulation that Lanefan is Falstaff; I want to learn what is assertable about RPGing simpliciter!(For completeness - what I've suggested above isn't the only theory going around of how fictions and pretence work. It just happens to be the approach that I favour.)</blockquote>

Verification