thread: 2012-12-20 : Positioning: Retroactive
On 2012-12-22, DWeird wrote:
I recognise this as the same reason I don't play raw freeform anymore - knowing what to expect meant immersing myself into an arcane arrangement of traditions of play that any one of us only barely understood.
I'm kind of hoping for the "and here's why all this is awesome and interesting and useful" part, though... As of now, it feels like this went from "if you've established that your character is holding a gun, all other things being equal, it's a legitimate move to assert that your character fires it at someone" to "if you've established that your character is holding a gun, god knows what your legitimate moves are", which is kind of confusing.
I know where we started from and I know the steps this took, but I'm losing grasp of where this is going, or, more importantly, why.
Am I missing something?
This makes RQ go "It's not that bad"
It isn't a case of "god knows what your legitimate moves are". It's more: suck it and see. It's probably legit to shoot someone with that gun, but maybe (per a game I ran recently) the GM comes back with "weird - your gun has jammed, I wonder why?"
But 9 times out of 10 he move you think is legitimate, is.
This makes R go "RQ, I disagree w/your example."
The GM coming back with "weird - your gun has jammed, I wonder why?" has nothing to do with the legitimacy of your move of shooting someone: it's the GM making her own move which follows from yours! In fact, this requires said GM to accept your shooting move as legitimate.
This makes RQ go "Hmmm"
You're right. But one can construct an example: "I shoot him in the head, his brains fly all over the place!" "Weird, your gun has jammed."
It's an example of positioning *if* the gun was "already" jammed, that is to say, if the move which jammed the gun was triggered before the player's attempt to fire the gun. Admittedly, strictly the player makes their move just fine unless the player specifies consequences (e.g. brains per above example).
...at least, I think so. Does a covert move change the notional position? I think it does.
