Started by Callan S., October 22, 2009, 12:42:44 AM
Quote from: Callan S. on October 30, 2009, 06:41:55 PMThis is probably the core dissonance here, Marshall - you've switched from 'something', to 'someone'. Treated them interchangeably, just as I was talking before about confusing and mixing up darwinistic system and man made system.Is someone at the table causing gravity to exist? Is someone at the table causing momentum to exist?
Quote from: Callan S. on November 01, 2009, 01:24:32 AMSumming up in short form, if you treat bothA: Going into a store, handing someone money and taking from them some milk and breadB: Going into a store with a knife, opening the till, taking money and leavingas being 'system' in the same tone, equally, without caveat, then you are speaking about them as being equal and the same. As you treat them, so they become - either in other people that hear you or in your own eyes. If you treat them equally, so they, over time, will become equal.
QuoteWhen I say "at the table" I mean "in the context of this thing that we call roleplaying." All the events that happens in-game? They don't exist. Nothing happens to the fiction unless the people imagining it (US) cause it to happen. The process by which we cause it to happen is what is termed "System." For there to be any possibility at all that System might not exist, you'd have to establish that things can happen in the SIS without people causing them to happen. Which is plainly impossible.
QuoteA good System and a bad System are both a System. This does not make them equal. Both are Systems, but one is good and the other is bad. Ejecting bad Systems from the status of "System" is nonsense and accomplishes nothing.
QuoteCallan on the other hand is arguing that there is no system, even though there is evidence that things have been resolved.
Quote from: Callan S. on November 03, 2009, 05:57:31 PMHold on, haven't you been saying raw physics counts as system?If it did count, it wouldn't matter if things are resolved or even unresolved amongst people at the table. By that measure, it'd still be a system.Or are you adopting some sort of view that raw physics are not enough to qualify as system? And now your speaking in terms of there being things resolved, as evidence of systems existance? Adopting just for this thread or such...I'm not implying your fully adopting it or anything.
Quote from: Callan S. on November 05, 2009, 07:00:26 AMWell, yes, play could continue. I'm imagining some mechanics where if the GM and player can't agree where the character is, he takes half damage from the dragon breath. Whether he's here or over there is not resolved at all, yet the procedure for gameplay can continue to be followed (he takes half damage), even though the imagined state is left unresolved.
Quote from: Callan S. on November 04, 2009, 09:20:31 PMHmm, how does that tie in with the million and one AP accounts out there (and this is even noted way back in T&T) that go something like "Hey, how'd the dragon breath fire on me? I'm standing way over here!?" "No, your standing over there" "If I'd known that I would have run way over here!" "Well, your there and your burnt!"I'd say that proves unshared imagination matters to play. Or are you saying if the player put his foot down and did not accept that he was standing over there/did not, along with everyone else, also imagine his PC was standing over there, are you saying he'd have no consequence. Ie he'd not be burnt by the dragon. And so your saying that unless everyone imagines it, it's not relevant to play?
Quote from: Caldis on November 05, 2009, 10:03:54 AMQuote from: Callan S. on November 05, 2009, 07:00:26 AMWell, yes, play could continue. I'm imagining some mechanics where if the GM and player can't agree where the character is, he takes half damage from the dragon breath. Whether he's here or over there is not resolved at all, yet the procedure for gameplay can continue to be followed (he takes half damage), even though the imagined state is left unresolved.This is resolving the events in the SIS. It may not answer where exactly the character was but it does resolve what happened, he was at least partially damaged by the fire. This is system and it works exactly as per definition and the same as your earlier example where you didnt agree with the gm's ruling but let it go.
QuoteEven here you have both parties agreeing on what happened or the game breaks down. If one side doesnt agree with using your solution then the game still cant continue.