Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7349114" data-attributes="member: 16814">I think the impact here is that you're arguing that since the conventions do not have binding force outside of what we give them, that they cannot therefor ever be causes of new fiction.&nbsp; I find that argument unpersuasive.&nbsp; That a thing can have a property in some cases doesn't mean it never has that property.&nbsp; Hair, for instance, can be red, but I cannot make the claim that since it can be red in some cases it's red in all cases.&nbsp; This is similar to fictional causation on new fiction in that it's trivial to provide an example where there is no fictional causation on new fiction but this doesn't mean fiction cannot ever have causal effects on new fiction.&nbsp; In fact, your examples are all of cases where fiction does have causal impacts.&nbsp; &quot;In the fiction this character is authored to be have fallen 50'&quot;&nbsp; causes, in reality and based on conventions, the DM to pick up 5d6 and roll them and use that outcome to narrate new fiction of &quot;and takes 18 damage&quot; which can then cause new fiction to be authored of &quot;and kills the character.&quot;&nbsp; There's a causal chain there, and yes, that causal chain exists because we agree it exists and we can change our minds, but that doesn't affect the fact that this causal chain occurred.&nbsp; And that fictional narration can have many real world events that are caused by it:&nbsp; the player of that character may now pick up pencil and paper and dice and books and undergo a process involving a bunch of interactions to create a new fictional character.In fact, that's an excellent example:&nbsp; if the fiction is authored that a character dies, real world consequences follow.&nbsp; And you can't separate the specific fiction authored from the act of authoring because it doesn't follow that authoring fiction causes real world consequences.&nbsp; If I author some random bit of fiction, the consequences aren't predictable as if I author a character death.&nbsp; The fiction matters, it exists, and we rely on both of these to continue to play the game.We don't tell people we're trying to encourage to play with us tales that go &quot;we have a bunch of fun!&nbsp; Bob narrates some stuff, then John narrates some stuff, then Fred narrates some stuff, and then Bob narrates some more!&nbsp; It's a blast!&quot;&nbsp; Instead, we tell the fiction we came up with together, and that fiction has a lot of 'and then's and 'because of that's because stories only work if they have at least a passing acquaintance with reality.&nbsp; &quot;Bob said there's a teapot full of dragons and then John said it's a teapot full of unicorns and then Fred said it's a housecoat full of unicorns and then Bob said there's no housecoat at all!&nbsp; Totally awesome game!&quot; makes no sense and we don't play for this outcome.&nbsp; We instead agree to hold the fiction as causal, and, because of that agreement, the fiction is causal and we take concrete and fictional actions because of what's already happened in the fiction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7349114, member: 16814"] I think the impact here is that you're arguing that since the conventions do not have binding force outside of what we give them, that they cannot therefor ever be causes of new fiction. I find that argument unpersuasive. That a thing can have a property in some cases doesn't mean it never has that property. Hair, for instance, can be red, but I cannot make the claim that since it can be red in some cases it's red in all cases. This is similar to fictional causation on new fiction in that it's trivial to provide an example where there is no fictional causation on new fiction but this doesn't mean fiction cannot ever have causal effects on new fiction. In fact, your examples are all of cases where fiction does have causal impacts. "In the fiction this character is authored to be have fallen 50'" causes, in reality and based on conventions, the DM to pick up 5d6 and roll them and use that outcome to narrate new fiction of "and takes 18 damage" which can then cause new fiction to be authored of "and kills the character." There's a causal chain there, and yes, that causal chain exists because we agree it exists and we can change our minds, but that doesn't affect the fact that [I]this [/I]causal chain occurred. And that fictional narration can have many real world events that are caused by it: the player of that character may now pick up pencil and paper and dice and books and undergo a process involving a bunch of interactions to create a new fictional character. In fact, that's an excellent example: if the fiction is authored that a character dies, real world consequences follow. And you can't separate the specific fiction authored from the act of authoring because it doesn't follow that authoring fiction causes real world consequences. If I author some random bit of fiction, the consequences aren't predictable as if I author a character death. The fiction matters, it exists, and we rely on both of these to continue to play the game. We don't tell people we're trying to encourage to play with us tales that go "we have a bunch of fun! Bob narrates some stuff, then John narrates some stuff, then Fred narrates some stuff, and then Bob narrates some more! It's a blast!" Instead, we tell the fiction we came up with together, and that fiction has a lot of 'and then's and 'because of that's because stories only work if they have at least a passing acquaintance with reality. "Bob said there's a teapot full of dragons and then John said it's a teapot full of unicorns and then Fred said it's a housecoat full of unicorns and then Bob said there's no housecoat at all! Totally awesome game!" makes no sense and we don't play for this outcome. We instead agree to hold the fiction as causal, and, because of that agreement, the fiction is causal and we take concrete and fictional actions because of what's already happened in the fiction. [/QUOTE]

Verification