Really?
That's a surprise to me. When I read a letter from a family member I'm not really worried about the spelling or puncutation, let alone it's literary merit.
Is RPGing a *literary* endeavour?
That's a surprise to me. When I read a letter from a family member I'm not really worried about the spelling or puncutation, let alone it's literary merit.
Imaro
Legend
No one made the claim that you had to be in "acting" mode to depict a character. The objection has been to the OP basically claiming color is not in fact a core (distinct??? this isn't really clear either IMO) component of roleplaying games when for many (but not all) it certainly is. Some won't engage with your content/situation/whatever if the color in your game sucks.
Imaro
Legend
Doesn't that depend on what the letter is about? And if that impedes clarity... how can you not worry about those things?
And again how does situation in a roleplaying game equate to the emotional bond of a family member??
I think that Choose Your Own Adventure books and boardgames are not very satisfactory vehicles for participating in a situation. Their structured natures make them relatively poor vehicles for protagonism.
Video games I can't comment on.
And I'm not denying that there are people who enjoy RPGs because they are entertained by performances or give entertaining performances. I'm denying that this activity is at the heart of RPGing. The OP isn't a piece of sociology; it's a piece of criticism.
Imaro
Legend
Uhm...ok you can feel that way but it doesn't make it true... unless you are claiming that OD&D, BECMI, AD&D, etc. played in a traditional manner are poor vehicles for protagonism... how can you say the same about games like Gloomhaven, Descent, Massive Darkness, the D&D boardgames (Castle Ravenloft, Wrath of Ashardalon, etc.) and so on?
Perhaps I'm not understanding how you are using the word protagonism here... could you define it? I would think videogames (especially open world games) would fit the bill pretty nicely.
What does "at the heart of roleplaying" even mean? for some people they will not play a game without color how is that not "at the heart of roleplaying" for them? For others they've gotten along just fine using pre-made adventures or running games without scene framing, setting stakes, etc... is your engagement of situation "at the heart of roleplaying" for them? What if they want to play in a pre-plotted campaign where, since the situations they will face and the way they will engage with them is generally known, color really is the most important thing for them?
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Last edited by a moderator:
Bedrockgames
Legend
Lowery I understand what Pemerton is saying. Believe me I have every reason I’m the world to want to disagree with him on stuff. We generally do not see eye to eye. But he is making a sensible point and he isn’t saying other people havevyo adopt his approach—he is just asserting how he reacts to things like stakes, GM narration etc. for my part I largely agree with his point about narration. When the GM performs in a flavorful way, doesn’t go as much for me emotionally as what is going on. I would surely quibble over details but I basically agree with him: this isn’t literaryand the GM doing things like speaking as though he is a narrator from a novel takes away from the experience for me.
You are spending a lot of effort trying to make me look and feel like an idiot. I understand the basic points being made. But a lot of my responses are to specific replies. People are being disingenuous when they say something specific, I react to it, then they tell me it is somehow out of bounds because the thread is about something else. I am just responding to what people say directly to me. And I will note most of my specific questions were ignored.
You are spending a lot of effort trying to make me look and feel like an idiot. I understand the basic points being made. But a lot of my responses are to specific replies. People are being disingenuous when they say something specific, I react to it, then they tell me it is somehow out of bounds because the thread is about something else. I am just responding to what people say directly to me. And I will note most of my specific questions were ignored.
Imaro
Legend
So he can express his opinion but those expressing the opposite are pushing a playstyle agenda?? Wouldnt that go both ways?
Satyrn
First Post
Ouch.
This gotta be the meanest thing anyone else ever said to me here. I mean, not even bothering to call me by name stings but that's not too bad. If you had just said I wasn't funny, that might've been okay. Jokes fall flat, it's what they do ("especially when you tell them!" cry the hecklers).
But to say you can't even see the joke?
Bedrockgames
Legend
It always goes both ways, but only when both sides are pushing a playstyle. I've been in a lot of these threads, and not everyone is always pushing a playstyle. Frequently people are just defending their own against an attack from another poster. There is a difference between pushing a playstyle (which is what Hussar seemed to be doing) and expressing an opinion about what you like. Just go back and look at the entire discussion involving performance and things like how to play dwarven characters. There was push back because he was characterizing other approaches as less creative.
These threads almost always boil down to some kind of playstyle dispute (specifically discussions involving this group of posters), and the language and models that get put forward almost always seem like a way of making that playstyle prime. And I would argue that is what Hussar was doing with performance. He eventually backed off, but he continued to push for the playstyle in question. That is why I am so resistant to adopting the language and models put forth in these threads (they don't usually seem like an honest attempt at objective analysis of play).
Similar Threads
