Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9015480" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, as I posted upthread I think it's obvious where Suits's concern with a &quot;lusory attitude&quot; comes from, in the context of post-War English language philosophy (which is his field).I believe there is another author in &quot;gaming studies&quot; (I can't recall the name) who uses the more metaphorical phrase &quot;magic circle&quot;.What these terms are trying to point to is that (i) playing a game involves treating some norms as salient and binding, and yet (ii) there is non non-arbitrary reason for accepting those norms as salient and binding. The players pretend, in some fashion, that the rules of the game resemble legal, moral, social etc norms even though they don't!I don't think that that particular point is very important for discussing RPGing - as I've already said, it is [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] who introduced the notion and the whole framework into this discussion, and my taking up of the terminology has been as a courtesy to him, as it is easy enough to deploy even if in my view not particularly necessary.The relationship between &quot;lusory attitude&quot; and &quot;rule zero&quot; could be described this way: if the GM is at liberty to suspend or change the rules of the game, then isn't the real rule GM decides. [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER]'s response to this (see eg post 435 upthread) is that the GM's decision-making is constrained by social norms etc - what Vincent Baker calls &quot;social contract&quot;. Applying the lens of the OP, this is the view that RPGs don't need rules after all, as social contract can do the work without the mediation and easing of negotiation that (according to Baker) rules provide.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9015480, member: 42582"] Well, as I posted upthread I think it's obvious where Suits's concern with a "lusory attitude" comes from, in the context of post-War English language philosophy (which is his field). I believe there is another author in "gaming studies" (I can't recall the name) who uses the more metaphorical phrase "magic circle". What these terms are trying to point to is that (i) playing a game involves treating some norms as salient and binding, and yet (ii) there is non non-arbitrary reason for accepting those norms as salient and binding. The players pretend, in some fashion, that the rules of the game resemble legal, moral, social etc norms even though they don't! I don't think that that particular point is very important for discussing RPGing - as I've already said, it is [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] who introduced the notion and the whole framework into this discussion, and my taking up of the terminology has been as a courtesy to him, as it is easy enough to deploy even if in my view not particularly necessary. The relationship between "lusory attitude" and "rule zero" could be described this way: if the GM is at liberty to suspend or change the rules of the game, then isn't the real rule [I]GM decides[/I]. [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER]'s response to this (see eg post 435 upthread) is that the GM's decision-making is constrained by social norms etc - what Vincent Baker calls "social contract". Applying the lens of the OP, this is the view that RPGs don't need rules after all, as social contract can do the work without the mediation and easing of negotiation that (according to Baker) rules provide. [/QUOTE]

Verification