Quote from: SigmundIsn't it sufficient when you say "Hey, let's play DnD"? Don't ya think the foam swords bit is exagerating a little? I don't know anyone who's first thought would be to break out foam swords when someone mentions playing DnD...despite the aweful commercial.

Dude, I'm stunned you didn't catch my meaning.  They are some things that are just flat-out assumed by the players, and that's a good thing.  It's actually important in a way, because nobody has time to actually talk about all that crap at the table.

I also use the term as a kind of reaction against the standard theory term, which is "social contract".

Quote"Dilemma" works too.

Hm.

QuoteNo, but would you consider it confusing if I said, "We're going to play a noir game."? I love the noir genre BTW

I would want to know what parts of noir you're interested in - is noir what we're doing because you like the period, or the characters, or the genre tropes, or the whole shot?  How much emulation should I look for and go for as a player, here?

QuoteTrue, but I would venture to guess that even tight-arsed groups are made of folks who game to have fun with friends.

Yes, absolutely.  They just have a somewhat different concept of fun.  

QuoteI do always mean cheating...whether I say OOC knowledge or meta-gaming. Once again, if you mean for "...you're making decisions about a character you're playing and their actions based on reasons that don't have to do with the character's views or perspective..." to mean something other than OOC knowledge you're going to have to clarify that for me.

It's not cheating if the group agrees to do it.  It's also not cheating when the GM does it.

I'm actually thinking I might start calling it the "GM perspective", to go along with the other "perspectives", and note that a few game styles let players take on that perspective in limited ways at different times.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenDude, I'm stunned you didn't catch my meaning.  They are some things that are just flat-out assumed by the players, and that's a good thing.  It's actually important in a way, because nobody has time to actually talk about all that crap at the table.

What didn't I catch? Oh, and don't be stunned, I'm just as human and capable of misunderstanding as the next guy

Ok, let me meet ya halfway on this one and say that the words "assumption" and "consensus" are certainly appropriate to use in this context, and they are certainly better than the completely pretentious sounding "social contract"...as if we're a bunch of anthropologists or something. It's just when I saw them in your glossary, what I heard in my head was some theorist saying to his/her group, "Yeah, today we're going to be using Assumption #1, with the 3rd Consensus, B variant." Kinda silly, I know.

QuoteI also use the term as a kind of reaction against the standard theory term, which is "social contract".

Ewww.

QuoteI would want to know what parts of noir you're interested in - is noir what we're doing because you like the period, or the characters, or the genre tropes, or the whole shot?  How much emulation should I look for and go for as a player, here?

When I say I'm running a noir game, I mean a noir game (whole shot). Otherwise I'd say, "We're gonna play DnD in Birthright with a noir feel to it." That would be about the farthest I would break it down, because otherwise it would require way too much thinking, and my 7 month old doesn't allow me that much time to think about RPGs. Besides, IMO a certain genre, if broken down and separated too much loses what makes it what it is. Running into Yogshothoth (or whatever) would kinda waste the coolness of Sam Spade, IMO.

QuoteYes, absolutely.  They just have a somewhat different concept of fun.

Well sure, everyone has different ideas of what's fun, even within a successful gaming group (although their ideas are close enough to allow small compromises that don't detract from the experience). Fun's still the bottom line though. Why else would anyone play a game?

QuoteIt's not cheating if the group agrees to do it.  It's also not cheating when the GM does it.

I'm actually thinking I might start calling it the "GM perspective", to go along with the other "perspectives", and note that a few game styles let players take on that perspective in limited ways at different times.

I really can't see myself agreeing with this. Even when I GM, when playing the role of any given NPC or monster I do my very best to run the character using only information that character could have gained through in game experiences. Please give me an example of when you would consider it ok to have a character (either PC or NPC) perform actions based on knowledge the character didn't have access to in game.

Quote from: SigmundWhat didn't I catch? Oh, and don't be stunned, I'm just as human and capable of misunderstanding as the next guy

Ok, let me meet ya halfway on this one and say that the words "assumption" and "consensus" are certainly appropriate to use in this context, and they are certainly better than the completely pretentious sounding "social contract"...as if we're a bunch of anthropologists or something. It's just when I saw them in your glossary, what I heard in my head was some theorist saying to his/her group, "Yeah, today we're going to be using Assumption #1, with the 3rd Consensus, B variant." Kinda silly, I know.

Ugh.  No, here, better image for you.

You've got the "communications counselor" talking in that sickly sweet voice saying "Okay, people have we reched consensus on this issue?  Great!"

Now, take that, and make it not-lame.

QuoteEwww.

Yep.  But that's the term from the Big Model (Forge theory).

QuoteWhen I say I'm running a noir game, I mean a noir game (whole shot). Otherwise I'd say, "We're gonna play DnD in Birthright with a noir feel to it." That would be about the farthest I would break it down, because otherwise it would require way too much thinking, and my 7 month old doesn't allow me that much time to think about RPGs. Besides, IMO a certain genre, if broken down and separated too much loses what makes it what it is. Running into Yogshothoth (or whatever) would kinda waste the coolness of Sam Spade, IMO.

Yep.  But not everyone does.  So I'd ask.  And if you told me that, I'd keep it in mind in future so you wouldn't need to say it again.  Consensus.

QuoteI really can't see myself agreeing with this. Even when I GM, when playing the role of any given NPC or monster I do my very best to run the character using only information that character could have gained through in game experiences. Please give me an example of when you would consider it ok to have a character (either PC or NPC) perform actions based on knowledge the character didn't have access to in game.

While playing a character?

How about "while deciding which encounter to use, and opening it up for the players?"

Quote from: Levi KornelsenYep.  But not everyone does.  So I'd ask.  And if you told me that, I'd keep it in mind in future so you wouldn't need to say it again.  Consensus.

I thought we were talking about the label "EMULATION" in this paragraph. Does using the word "emulation" in any way simplify talking about what the impending game is going to be about? If I were the player, I would still have to hear details to know what to expect, unless I was familiar with the setting or genre (note these terms) already.

QuoteWhile playing a character?

How about "while deciding which encounter to use, and opening it up for the players?"

That's not performing an IC action using OOC knowledge. Please recall, this is in response to...

QuoteIf you're making decisions about a character you're playing and their actions based on reasons that don't have to do with the character's views or perspective, you're in "Player Stance"

What this statment means to me is that IC actions are being guided by OOC knowledge. Where does GMs deciding which encounter to use fit into this statement?

Quote from: SigmundI thought we were talking about the label "EMULATION" in this paragraph. Does using the word "emulation" in any way simplify talking about what the impending game is going to be about? If I were the player, I would still have to hear details to know what to expect, unless I was familiar with the setting or genre (note these terms) already.

Knowing that emulation is occuring and that it can be focused on or kicked to the curb, as much in either direction as is desired by the group, is of value.

Using the word in conversation, not so much, I'll grant you.

QuoteThat's not performing an IC action using OOC knowledge. Please recall, this is in response to...

What this statment means to me is that IC actions are being guided by OOC knowledge. Where does GMs deciding which encounter to use fit into this statement?

Ah, okay, I get what you're coming at.

Here's a better example on that end:

I, GM, know that Sally the player has a serious problem with the whole issue of children in danger.  This is a personal thing for her.  I, playing the NPC I have, alter what that character would do so as to not to piss around with her, player.

I have just used OOC information to guide my IC actions.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenKnowing that emulation is occuring and that it can be focused on or kicked to the curb, as much in either direction as is desired by the group, is of value.

Using the word in conversation, not so much, I'll grant you.

We have consensus here I think....damn, now ya have me doing it....curse you theory-freak

QuoteAh, okay, I get what you're coming at.

Here's a better example on that end:

I, GM, know that Sally the player has a serious problem with the whole issue of children in danger.  This is a personal thing for her.  I, playing the NPC I have, alter what that character would do so as to not to piss around with her, player.

I have just used OOC information to guide my IC actions.

Well hell, I'd just call this consideration, or respect. No way should the game make someone uncomfortable with RL issues. I would have to agree that this specific example would not fall under metagaming as it's not playing the npc using info relating to the PCs in play, but I also doubt if it's such a common issue that it needs it's own special label.