thread: 2012-12-20 : Positioning: Retroactive

On 2012-12-21, Gordon wrote:

This may be quibbling, and I hope it's not disagreement.  Certainly I don't think it challenges the general usefulness of this point/series in any way. But - I'm having trouble with "always."  Is a true, absolute always important here?  It seems possible to design SOME (certainly NOT all, or even most) fictional positioning such that it is certain, or at least as certain as cued positioning (i.e., challenging it requires applying the LP in an area outside that of the move itself).

Let's see - alter the "Angel Wings" move to "Mirror Mage: Whenever you have access to a mirror large enough that you could fit through it, you can go instantly ..."  In the example above (room, chairs, one-way mirror wall), making the move using the mirror seems WAY legit - more even than going to Mom.  Like, bishop-moves-diagonally legit.

Now, when you say "My guy uses Mirror Mage," the response might be "Oh, did I say one wall was a mirror?  I meant four plain, dingy walls, with a beat-up videocam in one corner."  But that (and any variant that removed the mirror) might be considered pretty darn illegit itself. In fact, it could be explicitly ruled as illegitimate - "no changing details after a move that references it/them is invoked."

I guess I could say that "mirror in move text[a real written thing]" + "mirror in room description[real that someone just said that]" + "rule that you can't take back a used detail[real text in the book]= Cue, rather than fictional positioning.  That seems awfuly strained, though.

But - maybe I'm just missing something.  If someone can point it out, great!  If not, I'm content to wait and see if this "not-quite-always" point even matters to what Vincent is building.


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

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