TheRPGSite

My good Nutkins, should you find this thread deserving of Pigpennery or Parlorization, feel free.

I have this agenda.  It goes like this.  Deliberately unclear speech is rude.  If I didn’t understand what someone said, because of the words they used, and they did it on purpose, that’s rude.  If they used unclear words simply because they didn’t have any clear ones, then that’s just generally sucky, but nobody is at fault there.  RPG theory has a lot of unclear words.  

Note: None of the actual thinking that follows is my own.  Just a few of the words, and not even nearly all of those.

Authority: Authority refers to who has the power to decide things in a game, by whatever method.  If players can just make up unimportant little details of scenery on the fly, they have more authority than the core D&D books might suggest.  If they're constantly getting shifted around by the GM, to the point where the GM dictates a significant amount of what their characters actually do, then the players have less authority than usual.  Authority is split between the players and the materials, and the GM is generally treated much differently than the other players.

Balance: Rules that are balanced provide every player with equal opportunity to have fun during the game, and do what they can to minimise the possibility that one or more players will have fun at the expense of the other player's enjoyment of the game.  How that balance expresses itself has a lot to do with the focus of the game. So depending on the specific game, 'balance' could be all about 'combat effectiveness' or 'spotlight time' or 'influence on how the in-game story develops'.

Consensus: The Consensus is the whole mass of stuff that people bring to the table that they can agree on, whether they actually talk about it or not.  When a group goes over group stuff, they're usually either just clearing up how their consensus works, or adding more stuff to it.  A few other words here:

   Assumption Clash: When something is assumed by the group to be 'settled' in the consensus, but people actually have different ideas about it, it may come out in play, with different people on different sides of "but I thought...".  That's assumption clash.

Buy-In: When you have people at the table, and they're looking at the game material, and they dig it, and they start to have something of their own to do with that material, or that they want to say with it, from inside the game, they've "bought in".  To many established groups, buy-in is all that is really needed to get a consensus rolling.

Rules: Every clearly stated part of the consensus is a rule.  That includes if we roll dice, what dice we roll, and if we re-roll dice that go onto the floor, as well as who buys the pizza, whose house we play at, and so on.

   Mechanics: Mechanics are a specific kind of rule.  A mechanic is a rule that governs and works with numbers, ratings, and such.  A rule that says "a gun does 2d6 damage" is a mechanic.  A rule that says "reroll dice that hit the floor" isn't.

Goals: When players sit down at the table, they have goals.  Things they think would be fun for them.  Some RPG books imply or state that they'll be played with certain goals, and work to serve those goals as the authors saw fit.  Now, it's entirely possible to play a game with a goals it wasn't written for, and even do a great job of it, but plenty of people like their games to be written to back up their goals.  Also, it's sometimes useful to know what goals a game is trying to support before you buy it, play it, or tinker with it.  Here are some goals:

   Theme: Some RPGs have powerful questions or themes that constantly recur, or are built to make it easy to include such stuff.  They ask questions, in a literary-kind-of-sense.  They take characters that have specific things central to those character, and they test those things, with the players experiencing the them by way of their characters.   Dogs in the Vineyard treats strong themes as a goal.  An example theme might be something like “What are you willing to do for power?”, which I’m told is a strong theme in Sorcerer.

Emulation: RPGs that have emulation as a goal have a single genre, setting, or set of source material that they give a lot of service to; the things that happen often in that setting and genre will almost certainly happen often in the game.  Toon emulates cartoons.  Blue Planet emulates, uh, itself, as far as I can tell, but it gives a huge amount of service to doing it.  A genre, like Horror or Noir, can be something to emulate.  

Challenge: Some RPGs present themselves, in play, as a series of challenges to be overcome by character and player.  If you, as a player, are plotting tactics within the game world, and find that the mechanics serve you really well in doing this, chances are you're looking at a game built to support people who consider challenging play to be a goal.  D&D, as written, is pretty challenge-heavy.

Stance: Some games treat a stance (almost always character stance) as a goal.  Plenty of LARP games fall here.  Stances are defined a little further on; we’ll get to those.  

Socialization: For some players, hanging out with friends and having a good time with them is one of the goals they come to the table with.  Most games that serve these goals take a deliberately light approach.  Munchkin d20 fits nicely here, though it's got a whole lot of support for challenges as goals, too (though it comes at them differently).

And More: There's more people, games, and kinds of goals out there than the top letter-count of a post allows.  People want different stuff, and many of them want more than one thing, in different measures.  Rock on.

Stances: While in play, you're making decisions, constantly.   You might be speaking as your character; you might be saying what your guy does.  Lots of different stuff like that.   Those different states are called ‘stances’.   Now, in this theory, people can move from one stance to another in a matter of seconds, but some games work best when played in one stance or combination of stances.

   Author: If you're making decisions around a character or group of characters and their actions, and think about it as if you were writing a book or directing a play - you're detached from the situation, manipulating stuff in it, with a broad viewpoint - you're in author stance.  There's a range of ways to come at this stance; different people are in different mental spaces when they use it.

Character: If you're making decisions as your character, then you're in "Character Stance".  You may be trying to play your character from outside, and representing it by "speaking in character", or you might be aiming to actually take a shot at seeing things from the perspective of your fictional person - something that often gets called "immersion"; there's plenty of internal range in playing as your charater.

Player: If 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".  Games with solidly tactical combat tend to move players into this stance; here, they can treat the character as a complex playing piece.  Again, there's a range of mental spaces here, ranging from tactical cooperative play to one-upmanship, and so on.


...You want to nit-pick, now, don't you?  


Admit it.


You do.


Go for it.

This thread is unbalanced and has a rotten stance.

since you have done any analysis of role playing games whatsoever, you are obviously overintellectualizing the game in an attempt to keep people out of it.

congratulations, I hereby dub you SWINE, and move this thread to the correct forum. :heh:

edit: oh, well, since things aren't working right yet, I guess it can stay here for now.

please, continue - oh, and i'm interested - why isn't "mechanics" a subset of "rules" ?

Quote from: Thjalfisince you have done any analysis of role playing games whatsoever, you are obviously overintellectualizing the game in an attempt to keep people out of it.

congratulations, I hereby dub you SWINE, and move this thread to the correct forum. :heh:

edit: oh, well, since things aren't working right yet, I guess it can stay here for now.

Heh.  When it works, I'd be amused to have this be a first post.

Quote from: Thjalfiplease, continue - oh, and i'm interested - why isn't "mechanics" a subset of "rules" ?

Uh...  in the text formatting?  Because I forgot to make it one.

Quote from: Name LipsThis thread is unbalanced and has a rotten stance.

It does not attempt to ensure maximum fun for all participants, and I was unclear on how I was relating to my character?

Rubbish!

Quote from: Levi KornelsenUh...  in the text formatting?  Because I forgot to make it one.

Fixed it for you!

oh, you should be able to post here now too. ;)

So many bolded terms, but why?

Does this really help you play?

Quote from: Cowardly LeechDoes this really help you play?

When I have a player that wants something from the game, and can't figure out how to tell me what it is, yes.

Quote from: Cowardly LeechSo many bolded terms, but why?

Does this really help you play?

Seriously for a second, while I am poking fun at both RPGPundit and the Forgites with my SWINE talk, I have used gaming theory to help my game.  It helped me figure out why my old group wasn't working.  I've also tried putting themes into the games, and found that it helps keep the game focused and paying lots of attention to the characters.  Result has been some awesome games.

So yes, for me thinking about theory has helped my games.  But I don't take them all that seriously.

Quote from: MaddmanSeriously for a second, while I am poking fun at both RPGPundit and the Forgites with my SWINE talk, I have used gaming theory to help my game.  It helped me figure out why my old group wasn't working.  I've also tried putting themes into the games, and found that it helps keep the game focused and paying lots of attention to the characters.  Result has been some awesome games.

So yes, for me thinking about theory has helped my games.  But I don't take them all that seriously.

Serious is good too - And I did enjoy your essay on conflict and the applications of gaming. I would still like to see you continue to work on gaming theory - Even when I don't agree, it's generally a good read.

Different viewpoints are a good thing to have, they make the world much more interesting.

It's decent to define your terms, but really, this kindn of thing should be done along with your own theory, not an attempt to define what words mean for everybody. Since definitions are in themselves a slant, if everybody agrees you end up with the kind of wanking on the Forge, where the terms only mean what they need to mean to support their theories and have little relationship to how people use the words in everyday gaming.

Quote from: shooting_diceIt's decent to define your terms, but really, this kindn of thing should be done along with your own theory, not an attempt to define what words mean for everybody.

This is a theory.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThis is a theory.

It's a position. How does this tell me why or how things happen?

Quote from: shooting_diceIt's a position. How does this tell me why or how things happen?

Uh...

Why: Things in games happen because people do them, motivated by their goals and the consensus their group has on how play should work.

How: Things in games happen however the group agrees; that's what a consensus is.  Generally, according to discussion, rules, and mechanics.

Maybe I'm not catching what you mean?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenUh...

Why: Things in games happen because people do them, motivated by their goals and the consensus their group has on how play should work.

How: Things in games happen however the group agrees; that's what a consensus is.  Generally, according to discussion, rules, and mechanics.

Maybe I'm not catching what you mean?

Well, a theory is really more of an intellectual structure that is involved with hows and whys. Terms are used to provide the facets of a theory, but I think a full theory, as opposed to a slant, is a bit more involved. The only exception is if your theory is about deconstructing or playing with the meanings of terms, or charting their historical transformations.

Quote from: shooting_diceWell, a theory is really more of an intellectual structure that is involved with hows and whys.

Oh, I see.  No, I don't produce much thought along those lines.

Get together with your group.  Decide what you want.  Go get it.

The only part that strikes me as needing a special structure is "words for useful concepts".  The rest is just "how to get what you want from your game", which isn't theory to me.

That's it.

Quote from: MaddmanSeriously for a second, while I am poking fun at both RPGPundit and the Forgites with my SWINE talk, I have used gaming theory to help my game.  It helped me figure out why my old group wasn't working.  I've also tried putting themes into the games, and found that it helps keep the game focused and paying lots of attention to the characters.  Result has been some awesome games.

So yes, for me thinking about theory has helped my games.  But I don't take them all that seriously.

Nice framing device there.

And whatever it is you're talking about, it's almost always a good idea not to take it all that seriously.

Are you serious with that?

As I've said before, if you have to write a glossary then you're using the wrong words. Use words which everyone knows what they mean without any explanation except the context of what you're writing.

Ultimately it's about what happens at the game table. So whatever you say, people who've gamed should be able to understand it without a glossary. I mean, if you have to specify this or that in the middle of some little essay, narrow it down and so on, that's okay and fair enough. And of course, words change a little bit because of context. Like "I love my girlfriend" is a different "love" than "I love this book." So adjust your context to fit the words you're using, and adjust the words you're using to fit the context. This is called "writing well." And as we've said before, bad writing is the major reason for the poor reputation of rpg theory.

If you need a glossary, it can only be because you're using words in some way people don't normally use them. Once you do that, you're taking the first steps up the stairway to the top of the Ivory Tower, where you can find a bunch of other blokes participating happily in a circle jerk.

That applies whether you're talking about "Narratavism", "Creative Agenda", or "Swine." Making up words is just what you do to show what a fucken' genius you are, and it pretty much shows you ain't.

Just use everyday words. Fuck the glossary. Most of the words you've used, you don't need to define. Gamers know what "consensus" is. "Stance" and stuff, not so much.

If you have to write a glossary, then you're using the wrong words.

Jim Bob: I think it's a pretty good glossary really. Even simple words get defined in the dictionary.

But I do have some questions about it.

For starters: What are the goals of GURPS/Hero in the framework?

-Marco

Quote from: JimBobAs I've said before, if you have to write a glossary then you're using the wrong words.

But here's the thing:

Go on RPG.net and ask people what kind of campaign would they be running if they were running High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Gritty Fantasy, Sword & Sorcery, Noir, Pulp, Science Fiction, Cyberpunk and you will get dozens upon dozens of answers for each.  I've seen the thread time and time again.

Does this mean we should abandon these words?

No, it means language is slippery stuff and if we are going to communicate online adequately, we are going to have to work at it.  Simple as that.

Quote from: JimBobIf you have to write a glossary, then you're using the wrong words.

They're as close as I've been able to get the ideas to plain English - hell, most of them don't even need defining here.

But if you've got better, even plainer ways of saying things here that will generally be understood, show me.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBalance: Rules that are balanced provide every player with equal opportunity to have fun during the game, and do what they can to minimise the possibility that one or more players will have fun at the expense of the other player's enjoyment of the game.  How that balance expresses itself has a lot to do with the focus of the game. So depending on the specific game, 'balance' could be all about 'combat effectiveness' or 'spotlight time' or 'influence on how the in-game story develops'.

This is good.

QuoteConsensus: The Consensus is the whole mass of stuff that people bring to the table that they can agree on, whether they actually talk about it or not.  When a group goes over group stuff, they're usually either just clearing up how their consensus works, or adding more stuff to it.  A few other words here:

House Rules

QuoteAssumption Clash: When something is assumed by the group to be 'settled' in the consensus, but people actually have different ideas about it, it may come out in play, with different people on different sides of "but I thought...".  That's assumption clash.

Ruling on-the-fly

QuoteBuy-In: When you have people at the table, and they're looking at the game material, and they dig it, and they start to have something of their own to do with that material, or that they want to say with it, from inside the game, they've "bought in".  To many established groups, buy-in is all that is really needed to get a consensus rolling.

Playing a role-playing game (also, "in a good group")

QuoteRules: Every clearly stated part of the consensus is a rule.  That includes if we roll dice, what dice we roll, and if we re-roll dice that go onto the floor, as well as who buys the pizza, whose house we play at, and so on.

   Mechanics: Mechanics are a specific kind of rule.  A mechanic is a rule that governs and works with numbers, ratings, and such.  A rule that says "a gun does 2d6 damage" is a mechanic.  A rule that says "reroll dice that hit the floor" isn't.

All good

QuoteGoals: When players sit down at the table, they have goals.  Things they think would be fun for them.  Some RPG books imply or state that they'll be played with certain goals, and work to serve those goals as the authors saw fit.  Now, it's entirely possible to play a game with a goals it wasn't written for, and even do a great job of it, but plenty of people like their games to be written to back up their goals.  Also, it's sometimes useful to know what goals a game is trying to support before you buy it, play it, or tinker with it.  Here are some goals:

Good

QuoteTheme: Some RPGs have powerful questions or themes that constantly recur, or are built to make it easy to include such stuff.  They ask questions, in a literary-kind-of-sense.  They take characters that have specific things central to those character, and they test those things, with the players experiencing the them by way of their characters.   Dogs in the Vineyard treats strong themes as a goal.  An example theme might be something like "What are you willing to do for power?", which I'm told is a strong theme in Sorcerer.

Have to admit, I'm at a loss for this one, because I don't know anyone who consciouosly does this, so there's been no need to discuss it. Nobody I've played with has admitted to thinking of RPing in a "literary-kind-of-sense". Also, we rarely set out with the goal of "testing" ourselves morally (I assume this is what "test" means), because it's not my morals I'm roleplaying, it's a fictional character's. Since I'm also not setting out to tell a story, especially one meant for a wide audience, I've never felt the need to challenge myself on a moral level through RPing. I can think of better ways to explore issues relating to my value system than playing a RPG.

QuoteEmulation: RPGs that have emulation as a goal have a single genre, setting, or set of source material that they give a lot of service to; the things that happen often in that setting and genre will almost certainly happen often in the game.  Toon emulates cartoons.  Blue Planet emulates, uh, itself, as far as I can tell, but it gives a huge amount of service to doing it.  A genre, like Horror or Noir, can be something to emulate.  

Genre, or setting. All RPGs emulate something (and are specifially designed to do so), so IMO this word "Emulation" isn't really that good in this application anyway. I think "sci-fi", or "fantasy", or "Stargate SG-1", or "Spycraft", are all good enough and quite sufficient to describe themselves. Liscensed settings is good to point the mind in the right direction, and "generic system", or "base system" also suffices.

QuoteChallenge: Some RPGs present themselves, in play, as a series of challenges to be overcome by character and player.  If you, as a player, are plotting tactics within the game world, and find that the mechanics serve you really well in doing this, chances are you're looking at a game built to support people who consider challenging play to be a goal.  D&D, as written, is pretty challenge-heavy.

I would say the this word is fine, but I would also say that all RPGs are designed to present series of challenges of some sort. Not just DnD and it's ilk.

QuoteSocialization: For some players, hanging out with friends and having a good time with them is one of the goals they come to the table with.  Most games that serve these goals take a deliberately light approach.  Munchkin d20 fits nicely here, though it's got a whole lot of support for challenges as goals, too (though it comes at them differently).

Game night. Also, Table-top RPing (as opposed to PBM games, etc)

QuoteStances: While in play, you're making decisions, constantly.   You might be speaking as your character; you might be saying what your guy does.  Lots of different stuff like that.   Those different states are called 'stances'.   Now, in this theory, people can move from one stance to another in a matter of seconds, but some games work best when played in one stance or combination of stances.

   Author: If you're making decisions around a character or group of characters and their actions, and think about it as if you were writing a book or directing a play - you're detached from the situation, manipulating stuff in it, with a broad viewpoint - you're in author stance.  There's a range of ways to come at this stance; different people are in different mental spaces when they use it.

As I said, nobody I know does this bit about thinking in literary terms...that they've admitted anyway. However, taking the detached view in terms of RPing I would call 3rd person. Yes, I know it's a literary term, but it's not JUST a literary term, and it's what I've always heard this called...either way we don't need another shiny new term for it.

QuoteCharacter: If you're making decisions as your character, then you're in "Character Stance".  You may be trying to play your character from outside, and representing it by "speaking in character", or you might be aiming to actually take a shot at seeing things from the perspective of your fictional person - something that often gets called "immersion"; there's plenty of internal range in playing as your charater.

1st person

QuotePlayer: If 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".  Games with solidly tactical combat tend to move players into this stance; here, they can treat the character as a complex playing piece.  Again, there's a range of mental spaces here, ranging from tactical cooperative play to one-upmanship, and so on.

Meta-gaming. As an aside, just because a player is making tactical choices for a character does not mean they are making choices that don't have to do with the character's views or perspective. Many characters, especially in combat-heavy games, would be fairly conversant with tactics and their practical application. To survive combat and reach a ripe old age, an adventurer would have to become conversant with tactics.

Quote...You want to nit-pick, now, don't you?  


Admit it.

Ok, yes.

QuoteYou do.


Go for it.

I just did.

Quote from: SigmundHouse Rules

Unspoken, matching assumtions are included in house rules?

Quote from: SigmundRuling on-the-fly

That's a solution.  Assumption clash is the problem.

Quote from: SigmundPlaying a role-playing game (also, "in a good group")

Heh.

Quote from: SigmundHave to admit, I'm at a loss for this one, because I don't know anyone who consciouosly does this, so there's been no need to discuss it. Nobody I've played with has admitted to thinking of RPing in a "literary-kind-of-sense". Also, we rarely set out with the goal of "testing" ourselves morally (I assume this is what "test" means), because it's not my morals I'm roleplaying, it's a fictional character's. Since I'm also not setting out to tell a story, especially one meant for a wide audience, I've never felt the need to challenge myself on a moral level through RPing. I can think of better ways to explore issues relating to my value system than playing a RPG.

The word "literary" in there is the bit that confuses.

Some games put the character into a situation where they need to make a choice, and any choice the character makes gives them depth.

What would you call that?

QuoteGenre, or setting. All RPGs emulate something (and are specifially designed to do so), so IMO this word "Emulation" isn't really that good in this application anyway. I think "sci-fi", or "fantasy", or "Stargate SG-1", or "Spycraft", are all good enough and quite sufficient to describe themselves. Liscensed settings is good to point the mind in the right direction, and "generic system", or "base system" also suffices.

Yep.  RPGs do generally emulate something.  But some groups are actually more into doing genre or setting-specific stuff at the table than other.

QuoteI would say the this word is fine, but I would also say that all RPGs are designed to present series of challenges of some sort. Not just DnD and it's ilk.

Hmmm....  Yes.  D&D is just more up-front about it.

QuoteGame night. Also, Table-top RPing (as opposed to PBM games, etc)

"Game Night" isn't really a goal.  "Not taking it too seriously", though...

Quote1st, 3rd person

I've heard those before.  Maybe.

QuoteMeta-gaming.

Has different meanings in different places.  In some, meta-gaming means "cheating through use of out-of-character knowledge."

Quote from: PakaGo on RPG.net and ask people what kind of campaign would they be running if they were running High Fantasy, Low Fantasy, Gritty Fantasy, Sword & Sorcery, Noir, Pulp, Science Fiction, Cyberpunk and you will get dozens upon dozens of answers for each.

Sure. But in the end it doesn't matter what they like or don't like. All that matters is what you and the people in your game group like. And with them you can take the time to have a longer conversation and talk specifics.

I mean, do you seriously think someone's going to develop some sort of rpg equivalent of the Dewey decimal system? "I prefer games in the 901.237 - 908.863 range." "Ah, I see: medieval, realistic with player options for use of hero points, games political in style."

It's just not going to happen. To say what we like, we're always going to have to use lots of words. Or just different words. For example if someone says, "low fantasy", we can say, "you mean like Conan the Barbarian, or like Excalibur? Or Princess Bride?" And they'll tell us.

Quote from: Levi KornelsonBut if you've got better, even plainer ways of saying things here that will generally be understood, show me.

I do show you, in every post I make in response to you, and in a whole swag of little things I've posted or written up here and there.

I've often been accused of being wrong, or an arsehole, and so on - but rarely has anyone said I was unclear.

Defining all your terms is supposed to be like laying out your bricks before building your whole structure, a structure you can use and live in. But it never works out like that, because you end up just arguing over your terms. You end up arsing about with the layout of the bricks, arguing over whether the longs should go in a pile by themselves, or by the shorts they'll be with in the building, maybe they should be a different colour, and hey this one is chipped, and so on.

Of course, many people like the semantic arguments, because that way they get to avoid ever actually having something to say. If you believe something that's basically nonsense, or you're not sure what you believe, you can just distract everyone with some endless semantic argument.

I don't think that's you, Levi. You have things to say: say them. Say what you have to say, and say it clearly and simply. You're quite capable of doing that, Levi, you've done it many times. The only reason to have a glossary is if you're planning to use the wrong words.

Quote from: JimBobDefining all your terms is supposed to be like laying out your bricks before building your whole structure, a structure you can use and live in. But it never works out like that, because you end up just arguing over your terms. You end up arsing about with the layout of the bricks, arguing over whether the longs should go in a pile by themselves, or by the shorts they'll be with in the building, maybe they should be a different colour, and hey this one is chipped, and so on.

But I've already built my structure.  It's right there in the glossary.  That's a large part of the point.

No, seriously.  Here. Let me 'splain.

I've said that there are these different "parts" of the game:

(Consensus (Rules (mechanics))).  

And I've said that there are any number of independent goals, that a group can combine or set up those goals any bloody way they like.  I've made a very serious point of trying to keep them equal and distinct, of trying to accept input on them wherever possible, and of trying to not use any insulting words.  It's meant to be a non-judgemental model that doesn't use unneccessary pictures.

See, so far as I'm concerned, all game models are semantic arguments.  That's why I treat the whole thing as a semantic debate, and one that I'm willing to give ground on where needed.

It lets me keep all of the word-babble in one place.  Then I can spend the rest of my time talking about what actually happens in games.

Do you see what I mean?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenUnspoken, matching assumtions are included in house rules?

Yes. We play DnD with house rules. When I say that everyone I know who games knows exactly what I'm saying. Although, the fact that we are talking about using terms for it kinda precludes the "unspoken" bit.

QuoteThat's a solution.  Assumption clash is the problem.

Right, but when I say we houseruled on-the-fly, the clash (or lack of rule definition) is implied...otherwise why the hell are we assigning a houserule?

QuoteThe word "literary" in there is the bit that confuses.

Some games put the character into a situation where they need to make a choice, and any choice the character makes gives them depth.

What would you call that?

Choice.

QuoteYep.  RPGs do generally emulate something.  But some groups are actually more into doing genre or setting-specific stuff at the table than other.

Yes, and "genre or setting-specific stuff" is a fine method of refering to it too.

QuoteHmmm....  Yes.  D&D is just more up-front about it.

Only if you're refering to tactical combat and/or heroic fantasy (and that's not even the only challenges we face in our DnD games either). Paranoia, Toon, Ars Magica, CoC...they all present series of challenges, they just aren't all always the same sorts of challenges.

Quote"Game Night" isn't really a goal.  "Not taking it too seriously", though...

"...hanging out with friends and having a good time with them..." has always been my main goal for RPing from the first time I sat down at a table over 20 years ago, right up until last week. It's been the apparent or actual stated goal of just about everyone I've ever gamed with. Whether we're playing a light-hearted, comedic game or a dark, heavy, horror game our goal has always been to have fun. If what you're actually refering to is fun, light-hearted, comedic games, then perhaps "fun, light-hearted, and comedic" are terms that might serve.

QuoteHas different meanings in different places.  In some, meta-gaming means "cheating through use of out-of-character knowledge."

Whenever knowledge possessed by the player and not the character is used in an in-character way, it IS cheating...and meta-gaming too. If you meant something different by "...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...", then you are going to have to enlighten me.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut I've already built my structure.  It's right there in the glossary.  That's a large part of the point.

To some of us they just look like a big pile of bricks. On top of that, some of them look like legos when what we're trying to build is a lincoln log house. (Lincoln logs are better anyway).  :win:

Quote from: SigmundYes. We play DnD with house rules. When I say that everyone I know who games knows exactly what I'm saying. Although, the fact that we are talking about using terms for it kinda precludes the "unspoken" bit.

See, I'd call those rules.  No, they aren't book rules.  But they're still rules.

But above that, we come to the game, and I say "Hey, let's play D&D" - nobody actually says, and likely nobody has ever needed to say, that we aren't going to use foam swords for acting out combat.

We don't need to say it, because we already have a consensus on that issue.

QuoteRight, but when I say we houseruled on-the-fly, the clash (or lack of rule definition) is implied...otherwise why the hell are we assigning a houserule?

Sure.  But you do need to sort out the problem, sometimes, just to figure out what the hell the problem is.  Not necessarily for long - it might just be one guy going "But I thought..." and the Gm going "Huh.  And here I thought...", showing us the assumptions that they thought they had consensus on, but don't.  Then they houserule, and you go on.

QuoteChoice.

Heh.  I was thinking "dilemma", or something.  Dunno.

QuoteYes, and "genre or setting-specific stuff" is a fine method of refering to it too.

Would you really ever consider it confusing if I said "We're going to totally go for emulating a Noir feel in this game, cool?"

QuoteOnly if you're refering to tactical combat and/or heroic fantasy (and that's not even the only challenges we face in our DnD games either). Paranoia, Toon, Ars Magica, CoC...they all present series of challenges, they just aren't all always the same sorts of challenges.

True enough.

Quote"...hanging out with friends and having a good time with them..." has always been my main goal for RPing from the first time I sat down at a table over 20 years ago, right up until last week. It's been the apparent or actual stated goal of just about everyone I've ever gamed with. Whether we're playing a light-hearted, comedic game or a dark, heavy, horror game our goal has always been to have fun. If what you're actually refering to is fun, light-hearted, comedic games, then perhaps "fun, light-hearted, and comedic" are terms that might serve.

Nah, I'm thinking of the same stuff as you are.  But some groups are more tight-arsed or looser in play.

QuoteWhenever knowledge possessed by the player and not the character is used in an in-character way, it IS cheating...and meta-gaming too. If you meant something different by "...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...", then you are going to have to enlighten me.

No, I mean, in some places, that's all meta-gaming means.  There was a LARP crowd I was with in Vancouver where if you said "meta-gaming", you always meant cheating in that way.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSee, I'd call those rules.  No, they aren't book rules.  But they're still rules.

I agree...they are rules.

QuoteBut above that, we come to the game, and I say "Hey, let's play D&D" - nobody actually says, and likely nobody has ever needed to say, that we aren't going to use foam swords for acting out combat.

We don't need to say it, because we already have a consensus on that issue.

Isn'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.

QuoteSure.  But you do need to sort out the problem, sometimes, just to figure out what the hell the problem is.  Not necessarily for long - it might just be one guy going "But I thought..." and the Gm going "Huh.  And here I thought...", showing us the assumptions that they thought they had consensus on, but don't.  Then they houserule, and you go on.

Correct, but we have never needed to use the words "assumption" and "consensus" to do it.

QuoteHeh.  I was thinking "dilemma", or something.  Dunno.

"Dilemma" works too.

QuoteWould you really ever consider it confusing if I said "We're going to totally go for emulating a Noir feel in this game, cool?"

No, but would you consider it confusing if I said, "We're going to play a noir game."? I love the noir genre BTW :)

QuoteI'm thinking of the same stuff as you are.  But some groups are more tight-arsed or looser in play.

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

QuoteNo, I mean, in some places, that's all meta-gaming means.  There was a LARP crowd I was with in Vancouver where if you said "meta-gaming", you always meant cheating in that way.

I 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.

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.