Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9015163" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't know what you are getting at here.Classic Traveller has a referee - a GM, in more contemporary parlance. That person is a player, who with the other participants (players in the RPG-nomenclature sense) adopts the lusory attitude of treating the rules of the game as binding so as to achieve the pre-lusory goal (which includes, as one of its attributes, overcoming unnecessary challenges).This doesn't make the game rules complete. For instance, it doesn't help with the issue I described.I am positing some minimum standards to count as "lusory means".As per Suits, these must (i) be less efficient means, and (ii) be candidate objects of a lusory attitude.Telling someone to call for a die roll if an action is uncertain doesn't seem to meet that threshold. I mean, in what way is it a less efficient means?And in what way is at a candidate object of a lusory attitude? What normative requirement are the participants treating as binding? The only ones I can see are (i) roll when the GM tells you to and (ii) accept as part of the shared fiction what the GM tells you to. Is this really what we're saying that 5e D&D players are committed to, in virtue of playing 5e D&D?The referee of Classic Traveller absolutely is a player of the game. They participate very directly in helping to establish the shared fiction - they introduce information about worlds, about animals and people, about what those beings are doing, etc. There are quite elaborate subsystems to support all this (world generation, animal encounter generation, patron encounters, other encounters with persons, etc).A football referee does not adopt the lusory attitude towards the rules of football. They adopt the attitude of a professional arbiter. For them, the rules are not voluntarily adopted: they provide a standard by which the professional, and perhaps even lawful, conduct of the referee can be adjudicated.The attitude of the football referee thus has far more in common with Hart's "internal point of view" than it does with Suits' "lusory attitude", which is adopted voluntarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing the prelusory goal.</blockquote>

Verification