thread: 2013-08-16 : Diagram Retrospective -plus- Ask a Frequent Question
On 2013-08-30, Vincent wrote:
Christoph: When we're talking about cycles of fictional effectiveness, positioning, and resource, as in the okay cycle, "currency" is just another word for "cause and effect."
Positioning (fictional or otherwise, along with Resource and Effectiveness, fictional or otherwise) has value at all ONLY when it has currency.
So, yes, you should. All the biz about how you don't know the legitimacy of your move when you make it is caused by the unreliability of fictional cause and effect, which is to say, the unreliability that fictional things necessarily introduce into currency systems.
Like I say to David and Dan above, currency is the idea that has value here. "Positioning" "effectiveness" and "resource" are just a thought experiment, vague examples we use to explore or illustrate the idea of currency. When you're designing a game, or studying a game to understand it, pay attention to its currency systems and don't spend a single second bothering to categorize its components.
This makes CB go "Thank you! To summarize:"
Currency really is all about cause and effect. In the purely fictional sense this is evident, but when interacting with the game components, procedures, etc. we're talking about cause and effects across the two time-lines in any combination.
But then, if we're just talking about cause and effect, we're talking about the dynamics of the game. I guess we might as well drop the term "currency" outside of it's very character-centric historic applications.
This makes VB go "It's true, we might as well."
