Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9011021" data-attributes="member: 71699">As I pointed out above, any set of rules whose explicit job is creating momentum from mechanical rules to fictional meaning or language rules is necessarily incomplete.I didn't really intend to drag conversation about rule zero here, but rather to raise questions about what it would mean for players to make rulings, or GMs to be constrained by rules, in relation to why we have rules? GM-as-Cast in accepting the constraints of rules and thus adopting a lusory attitude becomes a player (players may have asymmetrical roles).I'm still working through these thoughts, but if finding Suits plausible it seems one ought to have in mind a prelusory goal (the state of affairs in view of which rules are accepted) and the lusory attitude (acceptance of those rules in view of that goal.)It could be that as you say, the MC or GM etc adopts a dual-nature. That fits with other ideas about the plurality of roles and relationships that each participant accepts in order to play.Rule 0 isn't important here. We're focused on the why of rules, right?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9011021, member: 71699"] As I pointed out above, any set of rules whose explicit job is creating momentum from mechanical rules to fictional meaning or language rules is necessarily incomplete. I didn't really intend to drag conversation about rule zero here, but rather to raise questions about what it would mean for players to make rulings, or GMs to be constrained by rules, in relation to why we have rules? GM-as-Cast in accepting the constraints of rules and thus adopting a lusory attitude becomes a player (players may have asymmetrical roles). I'm still working through these thoughts, but if finding Suits plausible it seems one ought to have in mind a prelusory goal (the state of affairs in view of which rules are accepted) and the lusory attitude (acceptance of those rules in view of that goal.) It could be that as you say, the MC or GM etc adopts a dual-nature. That fits with other ideas about the plurality of roles and relationships that each participant accepts in order to play. Rule 0 isn't important here. We're focused on the why of rules, right? [/QUOTE]

Verification