Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 9020975" data-attributes="member: 7039850">Thank you for your lengthy insightful replies! I don't think I will pursue the state analogy anymore, as I think it has served it's commutative purpose, and talking about the obviously present analogy flaws I don't find were interesting.However I think this statement is an opportunity for furthering common understanding. The thing is that I do not commonly associate neither your (i) nor most of your (ii) here as expressions of rule 0. What you seem to describe is what I would rather have described as a style of play that require rule 0.I would agree that with this understanding of rule 0, rule 0 is effectively removing all less effective means for the GM to introduce things into the fiction. If I understand you correctly you further have as assumption that the aim of play is to establish a certain state in the common fiction, and that in this case there are fully efficient means to do so on the side of the GM - and they hence are not really experiencing play?Different use of terms make different kinds of conversations interesting. For instance I fully agree that with your outlined understanding of rule 0 here, talking about where the line between what procedures can be changed by the GM or not is not immediately relevant. However there are other topics that emerges as possibly important - like even if the GM is not having less efficient means to establish fiction, might it be that they can still be considered a player if they have a different agenda? For instance, if the GMs game is rather seen as a challenge to have the players experience certain emotions, do the social constraints accosiated with the game provide less efficient means to acheive that goal?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 9020975, member: 7039850"] Thank you for your lengthy insightful replies! I don't think I will pursue the state analogy anymore, as I think it has served it's commutative purpose, and talking about the obviously present analogy flaws I don't find were interesting. However I think this statement is an opportunity for furthering common understanding. The thing is that I do not commonly associate neither your (i) nor most of your (ii) here as expressions of rule 0. What you seem to describe is what I would rather have described as a style of play that require rule 0. I would agree that with this understanding of rule 0, rule 0 is effectively removing all less effective means for the GM to introduce things into the fiction. If I understand you correctly you further have as assumption that the aim of play is to establish a certain state in the common fiction, and that in this case there are fully efficient means to do so on the side of the GM - and they hence are not really experiencing play? Different use of terms make different kinds of conversations interesting. For instance I fully agree that with your outlined understanding of rule 0 here, talking about where the line between what procedures can be changed by the GM or not is not immediately relevant. However there are other topics that emerges as possibly important - like even if the GM is not having less efficient means to establish fiction, might it be that they can still be considered a player if they have a different agenda? For instance, if the GMs game is rather seen as a challenge to have the players experience certain emotions, do the social constraints accosiated with the game provide less efficient means to acheive that goal? [/QUOTE]

Verification