thread: 2012-12-28 : Positioning: Disagreements?
On 2013-01-03, Gordon wrote:
In an attempt to set the context of my comments... there's so much of this that I think is basically sound, plus often INCREDIBLY important and/or amazingly well put. But I'm left feeling like something's missing, either in my understanding or in what's covered by this overview.
In 1, "position is the total set of the legitimate", and in 2, "positioning establishes the legitimacy". That seems to create a circular definition of "position" and "legitimate" that is, um, un-useful in sorting out how these issues influence our play and design. Maybe I'm looking for a definition/use of one or the other (maybe both?) that doesn't reference the (each?) other?
There seem to be some permutations of the "casue-and-effect relationships" of positioning and effectiveness that make one essentially the same as the other - i.e., if you manage to fix the outcome as "fail" (in a context where having a chance at some other outcome is important to someone in the group), you've effectively de-legitimized the move, haven't you?
Jumping forward - I love illuminating occult co-ownership, 'cause, well, it is. But it's not obvious to me that the "agreement" from other players MUST happen at the moment of play. We can pre-agree to many methods of managing this essential co-ownership, some of which would leave an in-the-moment disagreement as a leave with-or-without your YooHoo maneuver. You mean to include more than just that option in "Not until every person at the table agrees" - or not? And I guess that implies my disagreement/misunderstanding of the absolute nature of retroactivity...
On 8, I suspect this is a very minor point - can't a game be "designed" with the fictional positioning reward cycle as intentionally "the" reward cycle?
My only concern about the conclusion is its' circularity, which would be fine if there was an exit earlier on - but if there is, like I said, I missed it.
