Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9012002" data-attributes="member: 71699">That's a good point. So the way in which a lusory attitude can accomodate rule-deciding power is that the lusory attitude applies to rules made up in the course of play. My concern is over what guides that making up? Based on your thought here, it's also the lusory goal and lusory attitude.If so, then does GM have the same lusory goal as the other participants? Suits could be read to be supposing that "players" is a homogenous group. Your observation implies a different category of "players" (i.e. referees) with differing lusory goals and attitudes from others, who still give normative credence to the rules for the purpose of getting to play the game. (Nothing forestalls overlap betwee referee-player and other-player goals of course, along with any anticipated differences.)It seems plausible to me to suppose a referee has a lusory attitude, because when we watch say a football referee they act in constrained ways consistent with whatever counts as the proper refereeing of the game. Can it be said that they adopt less efficient means? I think they adopt the most efficient means they can to achieve their goal.Suits' "less efficient means" says something similar to Baker's "create the unwelcome and the unwanted." As Suits put it "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles". (Emphasis mine.) And that's pretty interesting, also in light of Baker's "if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention. Live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better..." It seems to me that Suits and Baker are presenting similar views in this respect - where the why of game rules is to create unnecessary obstacles.Is right to say that those with rule-deciding power share in that why? Are they too accepting unnecessary obstacles to their lusory goal? If not, their goal is presumably not a lusory one and they are as I started out thinking, not players. Where [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER]'s contentions might lead is that TTRPG referees ought to (or can) be players, through creating unnecessary obstacles to their lusory goals.</blockquote>

Verification