thread: 2012-11-20 : Positioning: My Premature Conclusion
On 2012-11-20, Gordon wrote:
I think/hope this is about a complete understanding of fictional positioning, not defining RPGs.
An example: We're playing Chess, my pawn is diagonally adjacent to your queen, and it's my move. You say, in a threatening tone, "if a mere pawn strikes down their Queen, my people will be very, very put-out." That kinda looks like fictional positioning - I might change my move because you said that. It might have made me suspect you were sacrificing the Queen for a sure checkmate in x moves, or maybe I translated it to "if you take my Queen, there'll be no sweet, tasty home cooking for you later." But it's not fictional positioning, because there's no currency involved? The current Big Model definition of currency includes positioning as a component, so that becomes circular - if I decide the "my people" statement counts as positioning (which I might, because it can change player actions), by definition we're using currency.
Aside: I guess I kinda knew this, but it's now super-clear - the component-of-currency positioning of the Big Model is a quite different thing than this-here fictional positioning. Vincent, what components would you put in "currency" nowadays?
But here, the fictional statement about "my people" only influences player choice, not anything about what moves are possible or the immediate consequences of them. That only seems sorta-right, as "mess with the other players head" does seem to be a "move" - any other/better ways to describe it?
And obviously, I can just wait and see if this issue still exists when the rest of Vincent's posts roll out.
This makes GcL* go "Maybe this: Saying "my people" is interpersonal positioning"
that happens to include a fictional context. I'm not sure how to make the call on that vs. its' vice-versa, though.
*Marginaliaing myself - is that a good idea?
