Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Maxperson · Jun 2, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
I’ve only played Fiasco a couple of times, but I don’t think that what you’re describing is very accurate. In any scene, you can either set up the scene or you can resolve it, and those aspects will change from scene to scene. But it’s not really a case of a rotating GM like you are suggesting.

I didn't suggest rotating GMs. I said that when you step into the duties that are part of being a GM, you are a GM while engaging in those duties. This is backed up by the designer of Microscope and by the way Fiasco is played.

And I know for a certainty that’s not how it works in Microscope.

The designer of Microscope himself said it was. I quoted him saying it gives players the chance be GMs.

No one steps into GM mode and then back out of it.

I've made my claimed and backed it up. "Nuh uh!" isn't a counter to it.

All the players have the same level of authorship and the same role in the game.

Yes, they all step into and out of the roles of player and GM equally. I agree.

hawkeyefan · Jun 2, 2019

Maxperson said:
I didn't suggest rotating GMs. I said that when you step into the duties that are part of being a GM, you are a GM while engaging in those duties. This is backed up by the designer of Microscope and by the way Fiasco is played.

How is that not rotating GMs? No one steps into a role. The role of participant is the same throughout.

Unless you think that all four players are actually GMs? As if we’d see a table of people and say “Oh look, those four are GMing Microscope!”

Your assertion seems bizarre, no?

Maxperson said:
The designer of Microscope himself said it was. I quoted him saying it gives players the chance be GMs.

No, you quoted him saying that playing Microscope brings some of the fun of GMing to play. There’s a distinction there.

Maxperson said:
I've made my claimed and backed it up. "Nuh uh!" isn't a counter to it.

What is your claim? I asked....is it that Fiasco and Microscope aren’t RPGs? Or is it that GMless RPGs don’t exist because of your definition of GM?

I mean, I’ve had people who’ve never played D&D make claims to me about what it is....and from my perspective as a person who played, they were obviously incorrect...but they couldn’t see how incorrect they were because, you know, they never actually played.

Maxperson said:
Yes, they all step into and out of the roles of player and GM equally. I agree.

No, we don’t agree. Here you’re describing some kind of rotation of player to GM back to player. This is not how the games work. They simply work differently than games with a GM/player dynamic. There’s no such distinction.

Maxperson · Jun 2, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
How is that not rotating GMs? No one steps into a role. The role of participant is the same throughout.

Unless you think that all four players are actually GMs? As if we’d see a table of people and say “Oh look, those four are GMing Microscope!”

Your assertion seems bizarre, no?

No. Rotation is a circle and I'm not saying they become GMs in a circular manner. It does go player 1 is GM, then player 2 is GM, then player 3 is GM, etc. The players are stepping into the GM role in a non-circular manner.

No, you quoted him saying that playing Microscope brings some of the fun of GMing to play. There’s a distinction there.

As a player you can only experience fun of being a player. As a GM you can only experience fun as a GM. In a game where you step into and out of the role of GM for some aspects of the game, you are experiencing "some of the fun of GMing."

Or is it that GMless RPGs don’t exist because of your definition of GM?

It's not my definition. The existing definition of GM fits.

Bedrockgames · Jun 2, 2019

hawkeyefan said:
I think you’re right in that D&D looms large and is inescapable in such a discussion. So I see no need to cater to it.

How can you ignore the biggest RPG and the one most associated with RPGs in a discussion about defining RPG and its key elements? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Network television had long been synonymous with television. Someone in the mid-70s or early 80s would likely make a statement like yours that any discussion of television must revolve around the networks.

Yes, any working definition of what television is, would have to include Network TV at that time. Obviously TV can change, and obviously you can still speak of outliers in the definition. You just can't put outliers at the center of a descriptive definition.

I don’t think we need to be afraid of D&D somehow getting lost in the discussion simply if we try to look at RPGs as a whole.

I don't even know why you say this. This isn't about being afraid of D&D. This is about any honest assessment of what RPGs are has to account for D&D and how it is played.

Ovinomancer · Jun 2, 2019

Maxperson said:
Yeeeaaah, that's not the definition of DM/GM, though.

"game·mast·er
/ˈɡā(m)ˌmastər/
noun
noun: game master

a person who organizes and oversees a role-playing game, in particular by narrating the details of the story that are not controlled by the players."

When those players in Fiasco create scenes, decide results, and play NPCs for the scene of the active player, they are stepping out of the role of player and into the GM role.

Then this is true of all games, which still aligns with my argument, even though you've decided to ignore the definition that was provided and spurred this side discussion and substituted your own. It doesn't change my point -- after you've shared this role out to everyone, then it's now part of all games, including solo games. And, it also completely skips over your last argument that a GM sets up scenes. Can you pick a point to settle on, please?

Maxperson said:
I didn't. I corrected someone quoting a wrong definition at me.

No, you didn't, Max. I was using the definition that sparked this discussion, given by [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. You switched to a different (although not really) definition, and are now trying to make not reading your mind the fault of others.

Maxperson · Jun 2, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Then this is true of all games, which still aligns with my argument, even though you've decided to ignore the definition that was provided and spurred this side discussion and substituted your own.

You're seriously arguing that all games are roleplaying games? Because that's the only way that "a person who organizes and oversees a role-playing game..." can be true of all games.

It doesn't change my point -- after you've shared this role out to everyone, then it's now part of all games, including solo games. And, it also completely skips over your last argument that a GM sets up scenes. Can you pick a point to settle on, please?

Then your point was that every game is a roleplaying game and I'm discounting it entirely.

No, you didn't, Max. I was using the definition that sparked this discussion, given by [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]. You switched to a different (although not really) definition, and are now trying to make not reading your mind the fault of others.

Then his definition was wrong and you still quoted a wrong definition to me. You just didn't originate it.

Ovinomancer · Jun 2, 2019

Maxperson said:
You're seriously arguing that all games are roleplaying games? Because that's the only way that "a person who organizes and oversees a role-playing game..." can be true of all games.

Sorry, I didn't actually expect you to argue in a circle. I mean, your saying role playing games have a GM, but a GM is defined as a role in a role playing game. So, which comes first, the GM or the RPG?

Talk about begging the question.

Then your point was that every game is a roleplaying game and I'm discounting it entirely.

No, that would be silly, especially since my argument for this spur is that the role of a GM as you've shared it out is part of every game. It's only this recent circular requirement that the GM role only exist in RPGs that's propping up your side. And by oropping up I mean collapsing into circular argumentation.

Then his definition was wrong and you still quoted a wrong definition to me. You just didn't originate it.

It's not wrong, Max. It's different from ehat you are using. Superior, even, as it lacks the circular argument.

Maxperson · Jun 2, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
Sorry, I didn't actually expect you to argue in a circle. I mean, your saying role playing games have a GM, but a GM is defined as a role in a role playing game. So, which comes first, the GM or the RPG?

It's the definition. If you don't like the fact that GMs are part of roleplaying games only, get everyone else on board to change it.

It's not wrong, Max. It's different from ehat you are using. Superior, even, as it lacks the circular argument.

Okay. From now on the definition is "gross manure." I mean, as long as we're altering definitions, why stop where you've gone?

Ovinomancer · Jun 2, 2019

Maxperson said:
It's the definition. If you don't like the fact that GMs are part of roleplaying games only, get everyone else on board to change it.

No, Max, it's /a/ definition. There really are no "the" definitions. Words are like that. Given that it was essentially the same are your quote with the notable exception that it was an attempt to define traits of RPGs so it didn't include the circular reasoning, it was a perfectly fine definition. Fine enough that only you are arguing against it, and then only because you want to win internet points. You rush to win those points, though, has led you to engage in circular argumentation.

Okay. From now on the definition is "gross manure." I mean, as long as we're altering definitions, why stop where you've gone?

You're welcome to use this definition, Max, but you'll have trouble getting anyone else to agree. It's good to know that this is the definition you're using, though. Suitable for your argument, I think.

I mean, here, look back. I agreed with you and thought it was a good addition to have the creation of a fictional scene for the action to take place in. This is a great point. But, you want to continue arguing the definition of words so that you can win the point that RPGs have a role for the GM because GMs are a role in RPGs. You haven't said anything on this past insisting that your definition that GMs are a role in RPGs means that you can define RPGs in part because they have GMs. This isn't useful, though, because you've just presented a circular argument. Contribute to the discussion, Max.

Maxperson · Jun 2, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
No, Max, it's /a/ definition. There really are no "the" definitions. Words are like that. Given that it was essentially the same are your quote with the notable exception that it was an attempt to define traits of RPGs so it didn't include the circular reasoning, it was a perfectly fine definition. Fine enough that only you are arguing against it, and then only because you want to win internet points. You rush to win those points, though, has led you to engage in circular argumentation.

You don't get to just invent definitions in order to win the internet. At the very least, I have no obligation to humor you and your fictional definition.

You haven't said anything on this past insisting that your definition that GMs are a role in RPGs means that you can define RPGs in part because they have GMs.

I don't believe for one second that you forgot the second part of the definition. ", in particular by narrating the details of the story that are not controlled by the players."

Stop your disingenuous arguments.

Is RPGing a literary endeavour?

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

hawkeyefan

Legend

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Bedrockgames

Legend

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads

Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?

Morkus from Orkus

Legend

Morkus from Orkus

Legend

No flips for you!

Morkus from Orkus

No flips for you!

Morkus from Orkus

No flips for you!

Morkus from Orkus

Similar Threads

Is RPGing a literary endeavour?