Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9016793" data-attributes="member: 71699">[USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] I'd like to lay out what I believe are our areas of agreement and contention, without preferencing any verdict1) It's possible for a GM to function as a referee2) You contend that in some common modes of play (including trad and neo-trad) GM cannot function as referee3) Among things that prevent GM functioning as referee by your lights are - a) when they establish truths about setting, b) when they act as a font of unnecessary obstacles, c) when they choose a resolution4) You contend that 3a, 3b, 3c make GM functionally a player5) We agree that wielding rule-changing power may conflict with or disrupt the prelusory-goals/lusory-means/lusory-attitude (what I will call the lusory-fabric), that players must accept (perhaps on account of their being part of what it means to be a player)6) You contend that wielding rule-changing power inevitably conflicts with or disrupts the lusory-fabric: there is no means of governing the wielding to keep it in compliance7) I contend that 4) is not inevitable, so that even with 3a, 3b, 3c in place, GM need not become a player8) I contend that even where 4) is true (whether that be due to inevitability or otherwise) GM may wear two hats, i.e. be player and referee both9) I contend that 6) is false: that rule-changing authority can be made subject to the lusory-attitude through the proper principles and rules (and that on reflection, it will be seen that this is the only way games can function consistently at all)10) For avoidance of doubt, we agree that 5) is not at issue in the case of referees: a referee can wield rule-changing power without conflict or disruption because they are outside the lusory-fabricI wasn't sure about 6) but added it because it seemed right based on what you have written... notwithstanding that it feels like rather a strong and speculative claim (how do we really know from here all that may be possible for future game designers?) You might prefer we read it as the milder claim that there is no available means in the game texts we've been discussing, whether or not such means could exist. If so, then I have a further contention to make about that. Either way, my intent isn't to put words in your mouth.What would you say your level of agreement is with the above? Do they rightly lay out the key points of agreement and contention? Would you correct any of them to better put the case? Is anything (other than buttressing examples and arguments) missing?</blockquote>

Verification