Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9038179" data-attributes="member: 71699">Intentionally omitted from this list - I believe echoing the OP - is structuring ongoing agreement about what happens. Putting weight on this, from Vincent Baker (requoting from the OP)So there are some things we want in play that would necessitate rules, and other things that we want in play (e.g. ongoing agreement about what happens) but that we can achieve without them. Challenging 1. to 5. with the question - &quot;Have I never experienced or observed this in TTRPG play without rules?&quot; - yields intuitions that partly match [USER=85870]@innerdude[/USER]'s, i.e. that GM can supply something of what rules otherwise supply.What would they require to do that? Their decisions would need to be counted among the lusory means. They cannot while doing that be a player. (I would in this case mean in 1. &quot;every single player at the table.&quot;) That says something about rules: they are a common reference. When I wonder what to do, I refer to the rule. When I wonder what to do, I refer to GM. And of course &quot;wondering what to do&quot; can be made to be the case whenever &quot;I act in a given way&quot; or &quot;I am in a given circumstance&quot;.A GM can serve as a rule-like reference iff they are capable of articulating standards that are given normative force. One can easily see that AI GMs could in future bring into this 2., so that only 4. would necessitate rules. The behaviour in 4. might then be re-understood as a creative subversion of the dispositions or philosophies that inform the given standards.My view is that 1. to 5. all require rules, and that GMs can serve as a rule-like reference. It is better to say that 1. to 5. can only arise when provided for in the lusory means: that is necessitated for players to experience them. I have observed that a participant can be both player themselves and an element of the lusory means for other players: allowing players to collaboratively achieve what was outlined above for GM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9038179, member: 71699"] Intentionally omitted from this list - I believe echoing the OP - is structuring ongoing agreement about what happens. Putting weight on this, from Vincent Baker (requoting from the OP) So there are some things we want in play that would necessitate rules, and other things that we want in play (e.g. ongoing agreement about what happens) but that we can achieve without them. Challenging 1. to 5. with the question - "Have I [I]never [/I]experienced or observed this in TTRPG play without rules?" - yields intuitions that partly match [USER=85870]@innerdude[/USER]'s, i.e. that GM can supply something of what rules otherwise supply. What would they require to do that? Their decisions would need to be counted among the lusory means. They cannot while doing that be a player. (I would in this case mean in 1. "every single [I]player [/I]at the table.") That says something about rules: they are a common reference. When I wonder what to do, I refer to the rule. When I wonder what to do, I refer to GM. And of course "wondering what to do" can be made to be the case whenever "I act in a given way" or "I am in a given circumstance". A GM can serve as a rule-like reference iff they are capable of articulating standards that are given normative force. One can easily see that AI GMs could in future bring into this 2., so that only 4. would necessitate rules. The behaviour in 4. might then be re-understood as a creative subversion of the dispositions or philosophies that inform the given standards. My view is that 1. to 5. all require rules, and that GMs can serve as a rule-like reference. It is better to say that 1. to 5. can only arise when provided for in the lusory means: that is necessitated for [I]players[/I] to experience them. I have observed that a participant can be both player themselves and an element of the lusory means for other players: allowing players to collaboratively achieve what was outlined above for GM. [/QUOTE]

Verification