thread: 2012-12-07 : Positioning: Legitimacy and Occult Co-ownership

On 2012-12-13, Gordon wrote:

Hmm.... two functional uses of what's usually intented by "has final say on."

1) We can get all bogged-down and/or tangled-up if people just keep debating, quibbling and qualifying.  Let's avoid that by giving "say" about certain elements to certain players.  As for what we mean by "say" - perhaps better than ownership OR authority is ... leadership? Responsibilty?

2) This game asks a particular player to put more imaginative effort into a particular element (e.g., a PC in games with 1 character per player). We want to reward that effort and support evolving identification with that element by that player via ... acknowledging their responsibilty?

It's still not final say resting with one person really (Ben #23), but the weight of the consideration in Ben's #21 is acknowleded as "heavier" for certain player/circumstance/element combinations.

Non-functional (as I see it, for the kind of play Vincent is talking about) use of "has final say": here's the rules-endorsed bludgeon with which I can lay into the other players to get what I want.  And possibly other more subtle issues that are escaping me right now.


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

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




This reminds GcL of My old, flawed text