How Visible To players Should The Rules Be?

[Reynard]

It is more specific than the term you just used. No one tacks a "or whatever" after saying scene framing.

I didn't always know what it meant. Then I asked, and now I do. It's not difficult, and anyone engaged in discussion of the sort we do here should likely be willing to put in that much effort.

But I suppose it's easier to cry elitism for the use of jargon... while simultaneously going on about simulationism and sandboxes and action economy and the like.

Oh, please, no one was crying "elitism". That is something you are injecting into the discussion. I am advocating for naturalistic discussion about the things we talk about, because I think it is more inclusive and easier to actually get to the heart of the thing. it isn't some sort of attack on you or what you prefer.

But, if you think i am attacking you by stating a simple preference, the ignore button is right there.

 

[Maxperson]

When I see a banana I don't try and recognise it; I just do recognise it.

Just because it happened outside of conscious thought, doesn't mean it wasn't an action. It was just an unconscious action. You don't think about walking when you cross the room to grab a banana to eat, but you still successfully walked there.

 

[Campbell]

I guess, but it also invites arguments from people who feel like jargon immediately means "indie" or "narrative" or other things that suggest you aren't talking about ALL GMing. I know that isn't necessarily the fault of the jargon, but it is a thing that is easily seen (in this very thread, among others) and therefore probably more trouble than it is worth. If we allow people to talk about what they do in a naturalistic way, and actually make an effort to understand it (asking clarifying questions in good faith as necessary) we facilitate those discussion far better than jargon can, IMO.

I mean when I use terms like scene framing, fronts, GM Moves, kickers, etc. I am not like translating my natural thoughts into jargon. That vocabulary is natural to me. My posts almost always stream of consciousness, thoughts broadcast directly onto the virtual page. Soft move as a term of art is more natural to me than thinking in terms of adventures or hooks (given the couple of decades of mostly running indie games I have under my belt). I can understand that we all should put in more effort to frame our thoughts in ways others can understand, but it's very much not about what's natural.

I know I am trying to be as conversational as possible here. I just happen to come from a very different gaming cultural background than most people here despite having basically been part of this site since the beginning.

 

[Maxperson]

Who says kings don't extract labour (and-or taxes!) from their peasantry to build/maintain their castles?

Yeah. I'm not sure why @pemerton would think that there wouldn't be peasants building and maintaining castles and other structures just because there aren't set mechanics for it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've GMed hundreds, probably multiple thousand, hours of Rolemaster. I think I'm pretty familiar with the aspiration to "realism" in RPG mechanics.

More recently, I have played a lot of Burning Wheel. This produces far more realistic - gritty, grounded - fiction that is typical for D&D. As I already mentioned upthread, armour gets damaged and time spent training improves skills.

This has little to do with the notion of "reality unless stated otherwise", which I think is nonsense: what is real is what is fantastic is not about a default rule, but about the tropes that are understood to obtain within a fiction.

And it has nothing to do with the idea that having flies on a wall makes it more realistic, which frankly I find bizarre.

So, basically, because some posters in this thread have elevated their sense of how realism plays in games to an obvious virtue (one of whom I took to task about it a few pages back), you've decided to elevate your sense of how it does to the obviously correct.

Frankly, at this point you've evoked the term "A pox on both your houses" right now, and if you don't understand why, I think it would pay to figure it out.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't quite get how this fits with your earlier comment that, if the PC can't set the stakes, then the player shouldn't. Because the PC can't make it the case that there are clues on the Isle of Dread. Have I missed something?

To be honest, I have a good deal more wiggle room in that philosophy before play begins. Session 0 is not session 1 through ?.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I guess, but it also invites arguments from people who feel like jargon immediately means "indie" or "narrative" or other things that suggest you aren't talking about ALL GMing. I know that isn't necessarily the fault of the jargon, but it is a thing that is easily seen (in this very thread, among others) and therefore probably more trouble than it is worth. If we allow people to talk about what they do in a naturalistic way, and actually make an effort to understand it (asking clarifying questions in good faith as necessary) we facilitate those discussion far better than jargon can, IMO.

The problem is chronically have to re-explain what you're talking about. Basically, in the medium to long term, nobody is going to do that; the only question is if you end up with one set of jargon or multiple.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For part of what GMs do. Its utility as a term of art is then to enable us to have discussions about how in a given game or style of play a GM should go about setting a scene, what concerns they should have, what constraints they should have, etc.

In part by breaking up "what GMs normally do" into various components we can discuss them in isolation, design different sets of "what GMs normally do" for this specific game or playstyle and try to move away from the idea this is what it means to be a GM always being the same from game to game.

The reason I don't like the term is that it has it origins in theater, and therefore to me implies that we're involved primarily in storytelling when we play RPGs. You all know I don't agree with that philosophy, which is why I don't like that term being universally applied.

Of course, it's not really that big of a deal. Just a minor irritant.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It is more specific than the term you just used. No one tacks a "or whatever" after saying scene framing.

I didn't always know what it meant. Then I asked, and now I do. It's not difficult, and anyone engaged in discussion of the sort we do here should likely be willing to put in that much effort.

But I suppose it's easier to cry elitism for the use of jargon... while simultaneously going on about simulationism and sandboxes and action economy and the like.

I think it goes without saying (but here I am saying it) that jargon works best when everyone in the discussion is on the same page regarding what it means and comfort level using it. If someone feels a term has connotations they don't care for, they are going to be uncomfortable using it, even if they know what it means.

 

[Reynard]

The problem is chronically have to re-explain what you're talking about. Basically, in the medium to long term, nobody is going to do that; the only question is if you end up with one set of jargon or multiple.

I think it is worth re-establishing your position in any given new thread (or other discussion, but we are here so). That way it is most inclusive to people coming in. I can't expect @Micah Sweet to remember my position on player agency or even my definition of it, let alone someone with who I have not interacted with a bunch. We are hear to have interesting discussions about topics we care about (which sometimes get a little heated) and so I think it is helpful to do that in a way that invites the most people in with the least confusion.

I appreciate that @Campbell thinks about some of these thing "in jargon" and I will endeavor to remember that -- asking for clarification, rather than getting frustrated (which is my default, unfortunately).