Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7348232" data-attributes="member: 16814">Most of the recent thread has passed me by, but I wanted to touch on this argument as it seems foundational to many.I fail to understand how saying fiction has no causal process is remotely relevant when the argument then becomes 'except as stipulated in the rules of the RPG.'&nbsp; The first argument may be true (there's still an open philosophical debate as to whether fictional things are real), but it fails to remain relevant when it's then accepted that RPGs treat some fictions as causal by convention.If the argument is that the exact fiction authored is meaningless and it's the authoring the matters seems very, very premature when you then limit the nature of what is authored by already authored fiction.&nbsp; If &quot;fictional positioning&quot; has any meaning, it's causal to what can be authored to the fiction at that point.&nbsp; If &quot;genre tropes&quot; has any meaning, it's causal to what can be authored to the fiction at that point.&nbsp; If you use fiction, even by convention, to constrain how new fiction can be authored (and even who can author the fiction, characters not involved in a scene have little input in most RPGs) then you're accepting that fiction has causal power.I can see a rebuttal that takes the form: ah, but it isn't the fiction that does this, it's the agreement on rules that does this.&nbsp; And that gets around a good bit of it, but it doesn't account for the fact that we still check the fiction to see what's allowed.&nbsp; You can't say, for instance, &quot;new fiction must not contradict the existing fictional positioning&quot; and stop there -- you still need the existing fictional positioning, which is still fiction.&nbsp; The rules define which bits of fiction gain causal power over new fiction, but there's still fiction involved that is doing work.&nbsp; I don't see a coherent position that excludes fiction as having any causal power that then utilizes existing fiction to limit future fiction.What am I missing, here?&nbsp; Because, at the moment, this seems like one of those things that sounds really smart and relevatory, but it actually isn't.&nbsp; If you want to say that fiction has no causal power then you cannot reference fiction as a limit of authorship, as that's using fiction to apply causal power.&nbsp; And you can't cut the fiction out of that by saying it's convention or rules, as the actual limits on authorship depend on the nature of the fiction referenced.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7348232, member: 16814"] Most of the recent thread has passed me by, but I wanted to touch on this argument as it seems foundational to many. I fail to understand how saying fiction has no causal process is remotely relevant when the argument then becomes 'except as stipulated in the rules of the RPG.' The first argument may be true (there's still an open philosophical debate as to whether fictional things are real), but it fails to remain relevant when it's then accepted that RPGs treat some fictions as causal by convention. If the argument is that the exact fiction authored is meaningless and it's the authoring the matters seems very, very premature when you then limit the nature of what is authored by already authored fiction. If "fictional positioning" has any meaning, it's causal to what can be authored to the fiction at that point. If "genre tropes" has any meaning, it's causal to what can be authored to the fiction at that point. If you use fiction, even by convention, to constrain how new fiction can be authored (and even who can author the fiction, characters not involved in a scene have little input in most RPGs) then you're accepting that fiction has causal power. I can see a rebuttal that takes the form: ah, but it isn't the fiction that does this, it's the agreement on rules that does this. And that gets around a good bit of it, but it doesn't account for the fact that we still check the fiction to see what's allowed. You can't say, for instance, "new fiction must not contradict the existing fictional positioning" and stop there -- you still need the existing fictional positioning, which is still fiction. The rules define which bits of fiction gain causal power over new fiction, but there's still fiction involved that is doing work. I don't see a coherent position that excludes fiction as having any causal power that then utilizes existing fiction to limit future fiction. What am I missing, here? Because, at the moment, this seems like one of those things that sounds really smart and relevatory, but it actually isn't. If you want to say that fiction has no causal power then you cannot reference fiction as a limit of authorship, as that's using fiction to apply causal power. And you can't cut the fiction out of that by saying it's convention or rules, as the actual limits on authorship depend on the nature of the fiction referenced. [/QUOTE]

Verification