anyway.



thread: 2012-12-28 : Positioning: Disagreements?

On 2012-12-28, Dan Maruschak wrote:

I don’t get why you want to tightly couple “positioning” and “legitimacy” into a single concept and then have a different independent concept of “effectiveness” that touches on a lot of the same things as your positioning. It seems to me that it would make more sense to think of positioning as a concept which feeds into the process of determining both legitimacy and effectiveness. To me this has the advantage of having analogs to other games: your position relative to the basketball court impacts both what moves you’re allowed to make (“You’re on the bench! You’re not allowed to touch the ball!”) and how effective various moves are (“A successful shot from your current position will get you 3 points rather than 2!” “Taking a shot with that opposing player standing in the way is probably not going to work out very well.”). I agree that you can incorporate resources into positioning, though: a spendable resource is just another dimension in the game-space.



 

This makes RQ go "That's what I was trying to say"
Over in the effectiveness thread. Seems to me that legitimacy and effectiveness are only distinguished by the former being about moves that "my character" can make, as opposed to the latter, which is about changes to "someone else's character" that result from those moves. But part of the conclusion of all this is that "my character" and "someone else's character" are essentially bogus terms. Which means legitimacy = effectiveness. Yes?

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

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

 

 



 

This reminds DM of Games and idea-space