thread: 2012-12-20 : Positioning: Retroactive
On 2012-12-22, Gordon wrote:
It seems to me that the question addressed in this topic is "where do we look to determine the legitimacy of a move in a role-playing game?" The answer put forward is this: ever and always, per Boss-lumpley, we look to the assent of our fellow players - which (emphasized in this topic) they can only give after they know what the move is. So "all other things being equal, it's legit" and "god knows what's legit" are just different ways of revealing this is how and when we establish legitimacy.
I guess my question is this - is it EVER possible for there to be, between the rules and the fictional situation presented, enough information that the assent is essentially pre-granted? Enough so that to retract that assent would be just as illegitimate as trying to convince everyone that a bishop can too move like a knight sometimes? It seems to me that my Mirror Mage case in #10 is an example of that.
Now, I think that roleplaying has often chased after that total pre-assent state as if it should happen a lot, or even ALWAYS - and yeah, that's a mistake. I assume that where this is heading is that once we accept/understand the assent-driven nature of the process, we can be much smarter about influencing assent (and constructive dissent?). But again: does that mean that pre-existing assent just NEVER happens, and we can't/shouldn't sometimes play/design from a fictional position that includes some moves about as certain as a bishops' diagonal move? It doesn't seem to me that Principe Baker-Boss requires this, but if assuming it does is what's needed to keep building, I can do that for now.
This makes JMW go "Call it the Boss-Baker principle!"
For never-ending confusion about how it's deciding who is the boss of the baking.
