So this is kind of self-involved and pointless, but if I can't post it drunk at the birthday party when can I?

I didn't name the Lumpley Principle.

I wouldn't'a named it the Lumpley Principle. I wouldn't even think it deserves naming, really. When Ron first said "the Lumpley Principle" I thought it was funny and that it'd never last - I mean, lookie me, I'm a principle! Snerk!

Then it caught on and I thought that was even funnier - lookie me, I'm a principle that people take seriously! Snerk snerk!

And I have reason to suspect that coming up here in the lexicon I'm going to be a "key concept" - and that makes me laugh right out loud. Snerk snerk snerk!

But so maybe occasionally I get these little hints that people think I named it, and I'm like damn, I'm an rpg snob enough without people thinking I named a frickin' principle after myself. Instead of hearing me going snerk they think I'm going hoity-toity-too. Which I'm not.

Just so you know.

-Vincent

What is the Lumpley Principle, anyway?

I tend to stick to Actual Play, Connections, Publishing and Indie Design forums, not the theory ones, so I'm a little out of place on those topics...

The Lumpley Principle is ... uh ...

I wrote: When one participant says that something happens in the game, what has to happen in the real world before, indeed, it happens? Bottom line: all the participants have to assent to it. Mechanics can help create and shape this consensus, as part of negotiations, but they cannot make things happen in the game without it. This process -- statement -> negotiation -> consensus -- is the game's System in play.

The Lumpley Principle is the Death of the Author. Sorta.

Just for those who hadn't figured that out yet . . .

Gordon