System and the Lumpley Principle (split)

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Gordon,

I agree with you. The nonsensical behavior I'm referring to is expecting someone to abide by rules that he doesn't agree with in order to arrive at social-contract or GNS-level agreement. Sounds silly, I know, but it also characterizes role-playing as a hobby to a frightening degree.

Best,
Ron

[lumpley]

Ed, I agree with you.  Chess doesn't work by the Lumpley Principle, neither does driving your car, for exactly the reason you say.  

The chess principle:
When one participant moves a piece in the game, what has to happen in the real world before, indeed, it happens? Bottom line: he has to pick it up and set it down.

The driving principle:
When one participant runs a red light, what has to happen in the real world before, indeed, it happens? Bottom line: better get out of the way, cause baby that car outmasses you.

You may have to take back your move, or you may get in trouble for your driving, but nobody's going to say "dude, that doesn't happen" and mean it.  In roleplaying games, you don't need consensus that your move was legal, you need consensus that your move was anything at all.  

If you haven't, check out My Love For You is Way Out of Line, which exists right at that breakpoint.  Or at least closer to it than any game we've yet discussed.

-Vincent

[ejh]

Well I'm happy now. :)

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Time to close this thread. Happiness reigns. Thanks to everyone.

Best,
Ron