thread: 2012-11-20 : Positioning: My Premature Conclusion

On 2012-11-21, Gordon wrote:

Hoping that this is questioning, not disagreement, and that it's useful to someone other than me . . . and I can always go back to just waiting.

Going back to "It's not just that an in-game fiction exists, it's that the details of the in-game fiction are gameplay-significant," my concern was that the chess story obviously could have gameplay significance if it changed my move.  But by combining "the DETAILS of ..." and the alteration of AVAILABLE moves, maybe I see a distinction.

Even if we call the Chess-story a (non-piece-on-the-board) "move" that might well (not MUST) affect my future (non-piece-on-the-board) "moves". . . Is the expectation that a fictional statement MUST have a constraining (in the very broadest sense) effect as play continues what makes it a position?  A fictional statement might be a "move" in Chess in the sense that it produces a result in play, but the details of the statement itself create no limits unless the players happen to allow them to - and they can change their minds at any time.

I mean, in the absolute sense this is also true in RPGs, but the expectation is that, cues or no cues, such statements persistently matter.  In Chess, only the result matters.  It's not just that the statement has an effect (even a significant one), or that it has SOME continuing influence - it's the particular kind of effect and continuing influence it has.

Huh - unless the answer to my "Is the expectation ..." question is "No, not in any way at all," I think I'm close enough here.  Thanks for letting me ramble.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":