anyway.



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

On 2012-12-28, Judson wrote:

Here’s a thing that came up in conversation elsewhere:

I think a big question that’s made clear by this discussion is: can a rules text (or any system beyond a Popcorn Rule) control positional retroactivity?  In other words: no rule in a book, and maybe no concrete explicit agreement of players, is going to make “It usually is” into “It always is” for any particular action.

For example, one of the reasons I’ve always been a little turned off by Sorcerer I’d frame in this language this way: Sorcerer presents this dice and currency thing that I feel like is attempting to substitute system for positioning.  Sorcerer’s got mechanics like “when <fiction> you carry the dice over to the next roll” as if that can only happen in crunchy mechanical ways - but there’s just as much room in that gap to invalidate the move as there is in a complete freeform game.?



 

This makes DB go "Agree on the end result in Sorcerer, though not the attempted sub."

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

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